The Self-Selecting Elite Must Go
Harvard's President Might Be Involved in a Plagiarism Scandal
We Might Have Found a School Worse Than UPenn, Harvard, and MIT on...
Democrats Are Right to Be Scared of Trump’s Vengeance
Judge Hands Down Creative Sentence for Woman Who Chucked Her Burrito Bowl at...
Trump Makes Polling History in Iowa
Is This Ramaswamy's Backup Plan?
US Vetoes UN Security Council Resolution Calling for Ceasefire in Gaza
Trump Trolls Media Over Panic About His 'Dictator for a Day' Remark
Here's What Argentina's Javier Milei Did in First Act as President
Tucker Carlson Unveils His Next Big Project
The Real Dictators
Christmas Came Early: Long-Suppressed Truths Finally Spoken Ahead of UN Climate Summit
A University Invited Dylan Mulvaney to Speak on ‘Gender Equity.’ Here’s What Happened...
The Problematic Ousting of Rep. George Santos from Congress

At the Core of the “Gay Marriage” Debate

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

In Jeffrey Toobin’s recent article in The New Yorker, Wedding Bells, he resorted to name-calling to malign pro-marriage advocates, an all-too common tactic among the gay lobby.


In his article, Toobin wrote: “There are really only two reasons that gay marriage is still illegal in more than three-quarters of the country: that’s the way it has always been; and the very idea of same-sex marriage makes some people, well, uncomfortable.”

Then he went on to define that discomfort as “tradition and bigotry.” So much for returning the tolerance they preach and demand from others—others who actually have legitimate reasons for their beliefs.

The gay lobby—which I contend is the most powerful lobby in America today—has successfully infiltrated the minds of the less-grounded generation. And with that infiltration, they have dismissed the importance of what the Creator Himself demands of His creation.

They have succeeded in framing the argument, not from the creation point of view, but from one of justice and human rights. And who could oppose human rights? I, for one, applaud every effort to give the 100 million persecuted Christians around the world their human right to be left alone in peace.

But according to gay activists, human rights demand that gay couples be allowed to marry regardless of their gender. They are attracted to each other—why shouldn’t they marry?

That is a flawed argument, however. Marriage is a far more significant institution than trivializing it as between any two people who like each other.


In the Jewish and Christian understanding of creation, the Creator has ordained marriage for a far greater purpose than that short-sighted and shallow definition.

As the Anglican Book of Common Prayer declares: “Marriage is an honorable estate, instituted by God . . . and therefore not to be entered into unadvisedly or lightly; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, and soberly, and in the fear of God, duly considering the causes for which matrimony was ordained.”

Marriage is far from the concept of being just for two people who love each other—whether it be for a month, a year, or longer. Marriage is far from a hunger for sexual pleasure in whatever way one deems fit. Marriage is far from the idea that, if it feels good, then society must support you in doing it.

The Creator ordained marriage for three vital reasons: for the survival of humanity, for the procreation of children, and for lifelong companionship—specifically a lifelong companionship where one finds the only proper expression of sexual intimacy.

The Maker of humankind instituted that triune foundational bedrock, and one’s lack of religious beliefs cannot alter that elemental truth.

Many people argue that marriage cannot be looked upon with that triune purpose because so many marriages fail. The institution itself is damaged goods, they say. But that’s a false argument. Even if all marriages were to fail, that would not negate the purpose for which it was ordained.


Here’s the crux of the matter: loving someone, even if one intends for that love to be permanent, is not enough to constitute marriage. That trivializes marriage.

Although love is an essential ingredient for marriage, it is by no means the only ingredient—especially when that love is of the selfish nature so common today. Emotional love and good feelings will ebb and flow. But lifelong, deep commitment between a man and a woman, buttressed by children, is the Creator’s purpose for marriage.

Children need a father and mother. And the concept of a father and mother is based on a male/female relationship. There’s no getting around that. It is a foundational concept. But in bowing down to the powerful gay lobby, ten state legislatures have politicized and trivialized it.

I understand that some homosexual activists want recognition and feel that homosexual marriage is the only way for society to recognize them. But even if that happens, they won’t stop there. The next stage will be the demand that homosexual marriage be, not only protected and privileged, but preached as a virtue—even superior to natural marriage.

For deep down—too deep for some of them to admit or even recognize—they know they were created in the Creator’s image and are going against His ordained order. Thus their conflicted conscience will drive them to push society for more and more recognition. They will not be able to stop.


That is the proper understanding of the “gay marriage” debate. It is far more than just intimidating the people they falsely accuse of “bigotry.” It craves and demands respect, even from those who disagree with it.

I, for one, respect people with whom I disagree. That’s just general human courtesy. But no amount of name-calling will give those who reject the created order the respect they seek. That can only come from within, from a conscience that is aligned with God’s will for His world.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member


Trending on Townhall Videos