“If you think conjugal marriage laws unjustly discriminate against same-sex relationships, you will have no way of showing why the same is not true of multiple-partner and nonsexual ones.” – (What Is Marriage?)
It is unfortunate that same-sex marriage is still seen in the eyes of many as a homosexuality rights issue. It is not. It is not, strictly speaking, even a faith issue.
In the Lords’ debate on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, concluded thus: “This is not a faith issue, although we are grateful for the attention that government and the other place have paid to issues of religious freedom — deeply grateful.
“But it is not, at heart, a faith issue; it is about the general social good. And so with much regret but entire conviction, I cannot support the bill as it stands.”
The authors of What is Marriage? nail how this issue should be framed: “It is not the conferral of benefits on same-sex relationships itself but redefining marriage in the public mind that bodes ill for the common good… This is fundamentally a debate about what marriage is, not about homosexuality.”
The legalisation of same-sex marriage is but one step on the marriage revisionists’ slippery slope. The real issue is not a specific type of re-definition but the whimsical revisions being made in the name of “equality”.
If same-sex relationships cannot be excluded from the current definition of marriage then why should polygamous relationships be excluded?
Sherif Girgis, Ryan Anderson and Robert P George point out that: “All legal recognition divides the world in two: what is recognized, and everything else. Laws that distinguish marriage from other bonds will always leave some arrangements out.
“You cannot move an inch toward showing that marriage policy violates equality, without first showing what marriage is and why it should be recognized legally at all.”
In Marry Me. And Me, Jillian Keenan makes her case as to why polyamorous relationships should be legal. Maybe she has a point. After all, who are we to “force our morality” on “consenting adults”? #equalityforpolygamists.
If Jim and Tim can now have legal and social recognition for their relationship then surely we cannot exclude Tom, John and Larry. And if we include Tom, John and Larry then surely we cannot exclude temporal unions? And on, and on; and on.
— Adrian Sobers