#1 is a falsely narrow characterization of marriage; #2 is spreading lies and bigotry, and #3 is a straw man, and a despicable one used in this context.
The movement also plays into the hands of those who want to cast the entire conservative majority in the Court as extremist clones of Clarence Thomas, who is to the right of Genghis Kahn as the cliche goes.
“Marriage policy should be about the children,” Newsweek Senior Editor-at-Large Josh Hammer says in the group’s launch video. “It’s not about bestowing public policy legitimacy and conferring economic benefits when it comes to adults who have their own idiosyncratic desires.”
Wrong, Bigot-Breath! Marriage policy must be about allowing people to form stable family units, the building blocks of civilization. As long as there are legal benefits to being married, it is unconstitutional to withhold those benefits according to irrelevant characteristics like skin color, ethnicity and sexual orientation.
Defining marriage as an institution focused on creating and caring for children is not just delusional but offensive. Do I really have to write about this again? Waaay back when Massachusetts courts ruled that access to marriage was a civil right, Ethics Alarms examined the opinion, based on the Massachusetts state constitution (authored by John Adams) and concluded yup, the legal reasoning is tight, there’s no way around this: same-sex marriage on a national basis is an inevitability. And thus it came to pass even as I foretold.
The quotes of the advocates of this doomed and incendiary movement are unanimously hysterical, counter-factual or drug-induced miasma:
Colson Center CEO John Stonestreet, for example, claims social science data reveals that kids “do best when they are raised in a home with married, biological mom and dad.” What’s “best,” I wonder? I know several happy families with married, same-sex parents, but many more split up, divorced, shared-parenting families where the kids aren’t sure who they should call “Mom.” Does this coalition want to ban divorce? Separation?
“We’re prioritizing the fantasies of adults, no matter how earnestly those fantasies are felt, over the real needs and the real good of children,” The Daily Wire’s Michael Knowles warns. Homosexuality is not a “fantasy” asshole, any more than heterosexuality is. I also know closeted gay men who are in heterosexual marriages and sire kids, while they and their spouses engage in adultery to keep themselves sane. Knowles’ characterization is pure bigotry. Two women who marry to form a family unit and who adopt or have a child by other means should be recognized as infinitely more healthy for children than forced opposite sex unions.
Nobody would dare tell my late father about how two-parent families are indispensable to the health and welfare of children. He was raised by a fierce single mother during the Depression, and would answer, “One caring, loving, responsible parent is far better than two parents when one of them is uncaring, uncommitted, and abusive.”
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary President Al Mohler says that gay marriage “harms children in virtually every way imaginable.” No hyperbole, gross generalization or bias there! Then Heritage Foundation’s Delano Squires notes that “every single child, every single human being is the living embodiment of the relationship between exactly one man and one woman.”
Why thank-you for that, Delano, and may I add, water is wet. So what? Are we saying that marriages that are not focused on procreation don’t count? What are you saying?
All this movement is saying in reality is “We think gay people are icky and sick, and want to return to the good ol’ days when they hid those nasty “proclivities” and we could discriminate against them at will.”
Same sex marriage isn’t going to be overturned, but conservatives will alienate more Americans trying to get it overturned, with potentially disastrous results. If, by some miracle, these reactionaries were successful, the chaos the decision would cause would be widespread and ugly. Expanding rights is always controversial, but removing rights places a stigma on everyone who engaged in what was previously permitted.
Remember, the Supreme Court did not make abortion illegal when it overturned the weak and badly reasoned Roe decision. The law and reasoning in Obergefell was and remains solid, and based on that ruling, millions of families were created, openly and with the blessing of the State, that are thriving today. Declaring those marriages as illicit, harmful, and rejected by the government, as second class unions that stigmatize the couples as well as their children, will accomplish nothing except satisfy obstinate moralists stuck in the cultural norms of primitive populations, when homosexuality was a genuine threat to survival. The costs, however, will be genuinely destructive, not just to gays and same-sex couples, but to society and the U.S. itself.
Ethics Alarms 
Wait, I have to be the first to respond?! 😉
The sexual liberation movement, no matter how it is thought about, is one of the roots of present chaos. This is not a popular idea and it is hard to “prove”. But I have determined it is sound (personal opinion if you wish).
In upstanding metaphysical systems, not only Christianity and Judaism but others too, sexual disorder is the origin of many different consequential problems.
Sexual liberation led to all sorts of deviancies and they are connected.
Still, relatively “normal” coupling (relatively normal homosexual couples) must be tolerated but ‘gently discouraged’. And there must be mechanisms where they can get tax benefits and other similar benefits. But “marriage” (a sacred bonding and indeed in Christianity and Judaism a sacrament) should not ever have been granted.
I do not have the power to change anyone’s outlook however, so I can only state my position.
I agree, and it wasn’t. The United States government has no authority to define or bestow a religious marriage on anyone. It has the authority to define and grant a secular institution that is also called “marriage”. Part of the problem is that humans use the same word to mean both a religious union between two people and a secular union between two people. They often go together, but they’re not the same thing. People living in slavery in the United States used to marry each other religiously when they were not allowed to marry legally. Atheists can marry legally without subscribing to any religion.
The United States government cannot deny participation in a secular union on the basis of sex. How a religion defines its unions, though, is up to the people who practice that religion. If people in your religious sect feel strongly enough about different interpretations of what your extremely competent and clearly benevolent deity wants, your sect may split into multiple smaller sects, each of them absolutely convinced that they have the truth and the others are delusional.
“I agree, and it wasn’t. The United States government has no authority to define or bestow a religious marriage on anyone. It has the authority to define and grant a secular institution that is also called “marriage”. Part of the problem is that humans use the same word to mean both a religious union between two people and a secular union between two people.”
You agree that a homosexual union should not be solemnified with a religious union? That implies, naturally, that you have some belief in a transcendental authority (?)
You are right of course: only a religious authority can marry people by sanctification . And a state or municipality can only legalize a union.
My view is a bit different from (perhaps) what you think. The loss occurred when the culture separated itself from the metaphysical principle behind marriage and sanctification (of the man-woman union). People no longer see and think in those terms. And the only way they might or could is by way of reconsideration of the principles.
Those who sought homosexual union would do so and get advantages which the state can allow (and did restrict). But “society” would be in agreement that marriage of any type would only be granted to male-female couples. And for obvious reasons based on principles.
I recognize that those principle are no longer seen or respected however.
My interest is in what happens when a culture, a civilization, becomes separated, unmoored, ungrounded from those “metaphysics” (so hard to talk about).
Sorry, I should clarify. What I agree to is that the United States government cannot decide which unions are solemnified with a religious union. The Supreme Court can’t tell any Christian church or denomination to conduct a marriage ceremony for any particular couple. It’s up to religious people to figure out what rules their religions should have and what those rules are compatible with.
As far as religious unions go, I don’t subscribe to a religion, so I don’t have a stake in what sort of unions any religious group thinks it should solemnify. It’s not like I can tell them what to do with their ceremonies and titles. If I could, I’d tell them to knock it off with the bizarre cults and start helping people challenge themselves to contribute to the world around them, live ethical lives that they can be proud of, and have fun doing it.
If there were a transcendental authority, I would call for it to be overthrown and convicted of crimes against humanity. With great power comes great responsibility.
Your metaphysical principles have some basis in honest concerns about society, but you’re taking very detailed categories derived from observed trends and trying to use them to make predictions beyond what they’re capable of, with no proposed mechanism beyond “defying the natural order makes bad things happen”.
I find that effective troubleshooting doesn’t require arcane concepts that are difficult to explain. The metaphysical principles I use are based on constructiveness, putting ourselves in better and more advantageous situations over time, and are therefore far more widely applicable and with far more genuine predictive power. They’re also easy to explain using simple examples and scenarios that make sense to most everyone.
(Just curious: Do you subscribe to astrology? Knowing the answer may help me present analogies for the differences in our worldviews.)
“As far as religious unions go, I don’t subscribe to a religion, so I don’t have a stake in what sort of unions any religious group thinks it should solemnify.”
I understand your position through and through. It is, in fact, precisely the modern one. I.e. it is one for those who have abandoned the notion of metaphysical authority). What that means or could mean (for we two) is lots of interesting interchanges to explain and clarify “why we hold the views we do hold”. That is the most interesting part of the (consequential and determining) differences “we” face today.
You and I will not be able to agree, that much is obvious, but revealing conversation (in the right circumstances) could follow.
My entire endeavor (but children and family first!) is the reconstruction of “sound metaphysical principles” and these are not (quite) the same as ‘the practice of a religion’. (It has taken me nearly 10 years (!) to get clear about things, since when I first found this blog. And it does tie-in very well with ethics).
As says Kelly writing shortly below, people are hurt by religious fanaticism. It must be noted!
“All this movement is saying in reality is “We think gay people are icky and sick, and want to return to the good ol’ days when they hid those nasty “proclivities” and we could discriminate against them at will.”
The “restoration movement” taking form today is varied, complex and certainly fraught. But when it is understood to have a metaphysical grounding, and when the metaphysics are explained, it is then the Christian-grounded social restoration can be understood. Without that grounding however (in intellectually presented ideas: intellectus) Christian sexual mores will seem outmoded and oppressive.
The real conversation has to do with restoration and rebuilding on all levels, but certainly on the spiritual plane. Watch chaos spread: it will not abate by itself.
Christopher Dawson is a great resource for understanding genuine (non dogmatic) relationship of religious metaphysics to successful culture.
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.202296/page/n3/mode/1up
The movie reference to Animal House is perfect, as this proposal is both stupid and futile. It is stupid and politically suicidal for the GOP as gay marriage was an 80/20 issue, with social conservatives choosing the 20 side of the issue. Bringing this up again is a guaranteed to loose many of those who jumped ship from the Democrats to support Trump in 2024 as the Democrats jumped the shark on DEI, transgender, and immigration. It is also futile as many states have gay marriage enshrined in their state constitutions, and the Full Faith and Credit clause in the Constitution is relevant here, as a marriage that is legally closed in one state is legal in the entire United States of America.
The organizations who are proposing this should also look at the sobering results of the Dobbs decision: the number of abortions has increased from 79,600 monthly in 2022 to 98,000 by mid 2025. The only tangible result of Dobbs is political, as it is not an election issue anymore at a national level.
We do not need homosexuality back as a political issue either. Gay and lesbian marriages seem to be as stable as heterosexual marriage (, with gay marriages being more stable than heterosexual marriage and lesbian marriage as less stable than heterosexual marriage). So banning gay marriage is not solving any social problem.
I am in favor of not having the government in my bedroom, and I am definitely not in favor of trying to impose a particularly religious view on marriage on the entire society. (Heck, I hail from a country that has legal prostitution, and I appreciate a libertarian legal approach to sexuality and other personal matters).
But for those who are inclined to impose Christian values on society, shouldn’t they prioritize these issues that really affect peoples lives negatively? Should then not look at the fairness of divorce laws and the family court system? Many men complain about this and cite this as reason not to marry (MGTOW). However I am afraid that all those tradcons do not want to touch these real issues with a ten foot pole, and instead prefer to virtue signal on sexual morals.
“But for those who are inclined to impose Christian values on society, shouldn’t they prioritize these issues that really affect peoples lives negatively?”
And this is just the issue: Culture and society have shifted away from that wide group of views and intuitions that were part of a Christian metaphysical picture. That “world” is in a ghostly condition, fractured, no longer held together. So yes, when a Christian (or another religious) speaks out, it is taken as imposition, and resisted. And resistance is emoted, not necessarily reasoned through.
My comment and my views do not come from a place of imposition — this is impossible. In so many areas you can only define your own views and choices and practice them. Things have been set in motion that cannot be controlled and things must go to their ends.
It is a pessimistic realization and (from my position now outside of the US) it is agonizing to watch as people see their very country and community (even their civilization) becoming unglued and chaos rising up.
My perspective is that no one seems to know why and how it happened. They do not have a full picture.
I do also agree that now is likely not the best time to start up such activism.
I respect your positions nearly always, even if I occasionally disagree with them. This is the first time I can honestly say I read something you wrote and thought this sounded like a cultural liberal wrote it, not a far left progressive per se, but a very definite cultural liberal. You are labeling opposition to same-sex marriage pretty much the way the 20 somethings I work with do who are all progressive.
The LGBT community are the ones driving the porno books in children’s schools and trying to legitimize polyamory and all the rest. They are the ones who want to cut off the privates of “trans” children. That is madness but WIDELY supported in that community.
LGBT relationship stats show few of them are monogamous and a large number of them have an insanely high number of sexual partners. It isn’t a healthy variation, even if it is a common one. LGB even without trans stuff are also trying to destroy religious liberty. Many would jail Christians if they could. You see it happening in European nations all the time.
That doesn’t mean gay people deserve to be tarred and feathered. I don’t believe in employment discrimination or anything like that, but gay people have actively campaigned to get anyone fired who doesn’t agree with them, with the same vigor trans people are with pronouns. It all runs together in the same vein.
Yeah, the people pushing against same-sex marriage aren’t the best policy wonks, but the nation is a worse place after that decision. The dissent said people would be labeled as enemies if civilization if they opposed the ruling once a certain time had passed, and guess what? That’s exactly what’s happened.
Since Obergefell, kids have been mutilated, religious liberty has been undermined, free speech has been suppressed on college campuses, and polyamory is now more acceptable. The LGBT community has actively pushed to make the only legitimate moral sexual ethic consent and literally nothing else. They aren’t the only ones who push that, but they are the most monolithic in their support.
As for political timing, you’re probably right about that. Given the way Democrats try to make the sky sound like it’s falling all the time, this is a definite opening for sure. That’s more of a pollitical analysis though.
“Since Obergefell, kids have been mutilated, religious liberty has been undermined, free speech has been suppressed on college campuses, and polyamory is now more acceptable.”
Shouldn’t the tradcons not keep focusing on keeping transgender extremism at bay (puberty blockers of minors, men in women’s sports and women’s bathrooms) instead of trying to turn the clock back on gay marriage?
Not gonna lie – while a wall of words isn’t pleasant it’s way more pleasant to see a wall of words rather than having to click back and forth between two pages. Chalk it up to first world problems or something, but I’d rather see the wall of words.
And I always discounted lefties saying that if Trump was elected, the Republicans would overturn gay marriage. Sheesh. At least it’s just conservative organizations, not the GOP.
As someone who’s spent a long time recovering from religious trauma, thank you for this well-reasoned response to the absurd position these groups are taking.
Thanks for the thanks. I’ve been getting trolled by disrespectful commenters this week, some quite nasty. I needed that.
You are most welcome. I always appreciate when those I disagree with in many ways and I are to able to find common ground, as this country has become so polarized that it’s rare to find people with enough moral courage to disagree with those they might agree with on many other issues. So thanks for having that clarity and moral courage.