Trib columnist shows honesty about logic of ‘gay marriage’

Photo credit: soxophone player / / CC BY

One question we’ve often asked those who advocate for “gay marriage” has been this: If you believe that legal recognition of marriage should be based only on “love” – as opposed to the rights of children, or the benefits or marriage to society, or correct sexual morals, or another reasonable standard that would support traditional marriage – then where do you draw the line?

Should polygamous marriage be legally recognized because those involved love each other? How about incestuous marriages, such as between a brother and a sister, as long as the two parties agree to sterilize themselves to avoid harm to any potential offspring? Perhaps not surprisingly, “gay marriage” advocates have sought to deflect rather than answer this question … until now, that is.

Recently, a columnist at The Salt Lake Tribune penned an article calling for legal recognition of polygamous marriage. Her reasoning?

I got to thinking once again about the nature of marriage. And, as a strong believer in the right of same-sex couples to marry, it came to me that willing adults who enter into plural marriage should have the same rights.

She continues:

[T]he question of polygamous and gay marriage is one of adult choice. Who am I to oppose the choices of two women who join in matrimony, or two or more who choose to enter what now is called a “spiritual” marriage with one man?

This world has seen uncountable changes in customs and mores, and it surely will see more as time goes by. Let adults be adults, committed and accountable.

I have friends who ask if their gay marriage has ever affected my straight one. And I ask them if mine has affected theirs. The answer is always no.

So there you have it. All of the logic and reasoning for “gay marriage” also applies to polygamous marriages, and perhaps “gay rights” activists will, like this Tribune columnist, finally start being honest about it. Such logic could also be applied to incestuous marriages between sterile adults, since these individuals could claim the same “love” that exists in a homosexual couple. If legal recognition of marriage is just about “love,” then opposing legal recognition of any kind of marriage between consenting individuals becomes logically indefensible.

Then again, if legal recognition of marriage is based on something less selfish, such as the internationally recognized human right of a child to have a mother and father, or the benefits to society that marriage produces, or reasonable sexual morals, then there is a logical reason not to legally recognize polygamous or incestuous marriages.

So where’s the line? For “gay marriage” advocates, it doesn’t seem that there is one: We should just let “adults be adults,” and let legal recognition of marriage be driven by someone’s ability to convince another person (or people) to maintain an ongoing sexual relationship. Will that put innocent children in the best circumstances for happiness and success? Will that be the best thing for society?

When it’s all about “love” between adults, evidently things like children and society take a back seat.