Were We Wrong About John Fetterman?
CNN Grilled UNRWA's Spokesperson Over New Terrorism Allegations. It Did Not Go Well.
Democrats Embrace Mental Illness in the Name of Diversity
The NY Times Blames You for Shoplifting
Vivek Ramaswamy Gets FBI Weaponization Very Wrong…Again
Kilmeade's Book on Booker T. Washington and Teddy Roosevelt Is Excellent
A Disappointing Non-Debate
Green Groups Are No Longer Promoting a Cleaner Environment
Arizona, the Republican Party, and Its Discontents
Kamala Harris Talks Climate As Houthis Attack US Navy Vessel
Dear 'Legacy Media,' the Calls of Authoritarianism are Coming from Inside the (White)...
The World Is Waking Up to the Consequences of Mass Migration. Will America?
Fact: Enlisted Troops Make Great Officers
Legal Hunting Reduces Deer Collisions and Should Be Encouraged
American Thought Control Through Coercion

Drinking the Same-Sex "Marriage" Kool-Aid

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.

As leader after leader comes out in favor of the radical redefinition of marriage, it is becoming increasingly clear that what is driving most, if not all of them, is not biblical values, or the institution of marriage, or the long-term good of society. Instead, they are driven by polling, popularity, and a superficial pragmatism. This is what happens when you drink the same-sex “marriage” Kool-aid!


Consider Illinois Senator Mark Kirk, who on April 2nd announced his support for same-sex “marriage.” He explained that “Same-sex couples should have the right to civil marriage. Our time on this earth is limited, I know that better than most.” (Senator Kirk recently had a serious stroke.)

Then, for his intended coup de grace: “Life comes down to who you love and who loves you back — government has no place in the middle.”

What? These are the words of an elected U.S. senator?

Does Kirk not understand that the government does not get involved with the question of “who you love and who loves you back” but rather with the institution of marriage?

Does he not understand that the reason society conveys benefits on marriage is because marriage conveys benefits on society, namely, the ability (as a rule) to produce children for the next generation and to join those children to their mother and father? (Newsflash: It still takes a man and a woman to produce a child, and that is why it has always taken a man and a woman to constitute a marriage.)

And does Kirk really believe that the government should redefine marriage based on “who you love and who loves you back”? If so, then the government needs to recognize any loving relationship as “marriage,” regardless of age, number, or gender. But this is what Senator Kirk proudly declared.


Behold the effects of drinking the same-sex “marriage” Kool-aid!

Consider next the left-leaning Christian leader Jim Wallis. Although in 2008, Wallis had argued that “justice” requires us to support (and even bless) same-sex unions, he also stated clearly that, “I don’t think the sacrament of marriage should be changed. Some people say that Jesus didn’t talk about homosexuality, and that’s technically true. But marriage is all through the Bible, and it’s not gender-neutral.”

Now, Wallis has declared his support for the radical redefinition of marriage, explaining, “I think we have to talk about, now, how to include same-sex couples in that deeper understanding of marriage. I want a deeper commitment to marriage that is more and more inclusive, and that’s where I think the country is going.”

What? These are the words of a noted Christian leader?

How seriously can Jim Wallis be taken when he tells us in 2008 that “marriage is all through the Bible, and it’s not gender-neutral” and then in 2013 wants to make it gender-neutral? And how can he imagine that by removing the most essential components of marriage, namely one man and one woman, marriage will be made stronger? This would be like suggesting that, since car sales are down, we’ll say that bicycles and motorcycles are cars. (This is not meant to be a precise analogy but rather illustrative.)


And if Wallis truly wants to make marriage “more and more inclusive,” then he needs to embrace polygamous marriage and polyamorous marriage and more. Does he really mean what he says?

And has Wallis forgotten that as Christians, we do not determine our values by looking at where “the country is going”? Instead, as followers of Jesus, we are called to swim against the conformist, worldly tide of the age, calling society back to the timeless ways of God. Yet Jim Wallis wants to redefine marriage and make it “gender-neutral” based on where the country is going.

Behold the effects of drinking the same-sex “marriage” Kool-aid!

Finally, let’s consider the Democratic Party. According to an April 5th report on ABCNews, “What began as a slow drip has turned into a flood over the last two weeks of Senate Democrats switching long-held positions and now coming out publically to endorse same sex marriage.”

And what, pray tell, explains this “flood”? “. . . ABC News/Washington Post reveals that support is now up to 58 percent for gay marriage in the most recent [poll] up from 32 percent nine years ago.”

Well there you have it! Gay “marriage” is trending. What else are politicians to do?


Behold the effects of drinking the same-sex “marriage” Kool-aid!

Brendan O’Neill, editor of Spiked-Online.com, recently wrote that, “Anyone who values diversity of thought and tolerance of dissent should find the sweeping consensus on gay marriage terrifying.”

It is not just terrifying. It is enlightening.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member


Trending on Townhall Videos