Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Liberty by Ryan T. Anderson

Taylor Brown on August 6, 2015

As of the writing of this review, it has been a little over a month since the Supreme Court of the United States legalized same-sex marriage throughout the United States on June 26th in Obergefell v. Hodges. While almost no one was entirely surprised that the SCOTUS would rule in this direction, what was both surprising and disconcerting was how the majority ruled in favor of same-sex marriage.  As the four minority justices out in their dissenting opinions (all worth reading) the hasty and slapdash manner in which the majority justices not only ruled in favor of same-sex marriage, but also redefined marriage itself, left open a plethora of legal holes that, if left unchecked, could lead to infringements of the religious liberty of many Americans who continue to hold that marriage is only between one man and one woman.

While many news and commentary outlets have already devoted extensive coverage to Obergefell and to its potential implications for both the future of marriage and religious liberty, the first book-length treatment of the SCOTUS decision and its potential implications has already been released by Ryan T. Anderson, the William E. Simon Senior Research Fellow in American Principles and Public Policy at the Heritage Foundation.  His book, Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Liberty (Regnery Publishing, 2015), is a masterful exposition and defense of both the traditional view of marriage and religious liberty in the wake of the Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage.

Anderson lays out his comprehensive defense of traditional marriage and religious liberty over nine chapters.  His first chapter begins with an extremely detailed explanation of what marriage is by explaining its rootedness not only in biblical revelation, but also in philosophy, natural law, biology, sociology, and universal human experience.  In contrast to the bare bones “consent view” of marriage that has taken hold of the culture in the wake of the sexual revolution—and which made possible the Court’s redefinition—wherein marriage is understood as little more than a “relationship contract” (my phrase, not Anderson’s), Anderson presents a compelling and expansive case for the “comprehensive/conjugal view” of marriage.  This view of marriage was once the predominant view of marriage in the West and is still the predominant view in most non-Western cultures and countries.  The comprehensive view of marriage is not geared toward the mere emotional gratification or fulfillment of the people involved (though those are not excluded), but is instead oriented primarily toward the procreative rearing of children and seeking their developmental good. In short, the comprehensive/conjugal view does not elevate adult desires over the needs of children.

Chapter two of the book is primarily devoted to an in-depth examination of the negative socio-cultural ramifications of redefining marriage and how, if not checked, this redefinition can all too easily lead to further breakdowns in the monogamy, permanence, and exclusivity that bolster the procreativity-oriented reality of comprehensive/conjugal marriage.  This is then buttressed with an extremely thorough examination of the judicial overreach and activism involved in the Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage in Obergefell in chapter three.  The treatment given to the dissenting opinions in this chapter is worth the cost of admission alone.

The second half of the book, beginning with chapter four, is devoted to defending religious liberty in the wake of Obergefell.  Chapter four itself is largely devoted to examining several prominent religious liberty infringement cases that have already occurred.  This is then followed in chapter five with a detailed explanation of what religious freedom is, why it is the “first freedom,” and why it is of paramount importance that it be protected, not sacrificed on the altar of the sexual revolution.  This “strong-protection” view of religious liberty is then reinforced in chapter six, wherein Anderson shows how detrimental a national SOGI (Sexual Identity and Gender Identity) law(s) would be for religious liberty and for those whose religious convictions commit them to the traditional view of marriage.

The final three chapters examine both the negative sociological ramifications of redefining marriage, particularly for children, and lay out a long-term plan for adherents of traditional marriage to begin rebuilding a marriage culture and strengthening religious liberty against attempts to weaken it.  Anderson is optimistic here, but also realistic.  He rightly points out that the legalization of same-sex marriage is just the most recent and logical outworking of previous deconstruction done by no-fault divorce, recreational sex, and other trivializations of marriage and sexuality over the past four decades.  Rebuilding a marriage culture will take time, probably decades, but that does not mean it should not be undertaken.  Anderson points to the pro-life movement as the paradigm to follow, working slowly but surely for decades with their efforts beginning to bear fruit.  Anderson concludes the ninth and final chapter with three very practical steps that religious Americans can start taking now to begin rebuilding a marriage culture:

1. We must call the court’s ruling in Obergefell what it is: judicial activism.

2.  We must protect our freedom to speak and live according to the truth about marriage.

3.  We must redouble our efforts to make the case for it in the public square.

Anderson, a devout Catholic, not only offers these steps for all religious Americans (Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Mormon, etc.) but he also offers something that those of us who subscribe to the Wesleyan tradition of Christianity should also eagerly take up in defending: the holiness of traditional marriage.  At the beginning of chapter eight Anderson—citing Pope Benedict XVI—notes that people are more often moved by beauty and holiness than by arguments alone.  Thus, one of the keys in both defending and rebuilding a marriage culture will be to witness to the holiness of God-ordained comprehensive/conjugal marriage.  As Wesleyans we should flock to this, for if John Wesley gave us nothing else he gave us a vibrant and renewed emphasis on the importance and beauty of holiness and holy living.  As marriage between a man and a woman is itself a pointer toward the holy love of God, how much more powerful a witness would it be if infused with the zeal for holiness that we Wesleyans are so gifted with?

Truth Overruled is a must-read.  It is a must-read for Christians who want to cogently, winsomely, and respectfully defend both traditional marriage and religious liberty. It is a must-read for non-Christian, religious Americans who also seek reasoned and well-informed defenses of marriage and religious liberty.  It is a must-read for those on the fence about marriage.  It is simply a must read all around.  Anderson presents a well-researched and well-rounded argument for the continued importance of both traditional marriage and the strong protection of religious liberty.  And he does all of this while being eminently respectful to those on the opposite side of the issue.  Anderson’s work is the polar opposite of “hateful,” “bigoted,” or “homophobic.”  It is a prime example of the Christian imperative to “speak the truth in love.”  Though it is the first book to be published on the SCOTUS ruling, it is in no way a lightweight treatment. With the e-book version currently available from Amazon and the print version due out by the end of August, I would highly recommend you pick up a copy.  It will be well worth your time.

 

Taylor Brown is a Master of Divinity student at Asbury Theological Seminary.

  1. Comment by DavidHart-slowlyboiledfrog.com on August 6, 2015 at 12:40 pm

    Moderated?

  2. Comment by scottrose on August 6, 2015 at 2:04 pm

    Take your gay-bashing Bible, stick it down your bigoted throat sideways and choke on it and then wash it down with Jesus Freak Kool-Aid.

  3. Comment by Ty Hendricks on August 6, 2015 at 6:06 pm

    Take comfort knowing most Christians are fine with the expansion of marriage. There is simply a loud misinformed minority.

  4. Comment by Diaris on August 6, 2015 at 6:47 pm

    No Christian supports homosexual “marriage.” Happily, the non-Christian denominations that support it are all in numerical decline and will probably be extinct in a short time. This is a good thing.

  5. Comment by Ty Hendricks on August 6, 2015 at 6:54 pm

    By what right do you have to question my salvation? Who are you to judge?

    We focus too much on this issue and have thus elevated it. What of the sin of lying? Gossip? Adultery? Gluttony?

    I for one cannot keep them all and am thankful for a Christ who came to save, not condemn. (John 3:17)

  6. Comment by Diaris on August 6, 2015 at 6:56 pm

    Your “salvation” doesn’t concern me, I stated a FACT about the decline of the pro-sodomy churches.

    I’ll be happy to supply numbers to back up what I said.

  7. Comment by Ty Hendricks on August 6, 2015 at 7:00 pm

    You made the claim that no Christian supports Same-Sex Marriage. I support Same-Sex Marriage and am a Christian by the Grace of God.

    All Churches are in decline. I’m sure we saw the same Pew information. I think connecting it to the Same-Sex issue is a false equlivamncy though. The Southern Baptists arw in deine despite their anti-Gay stance. So an anti-gay church is also in decline as are many others.

  8. Comment by Diaris on August 6, 2015 at 7:12 pm

    Typical lefty, you argue with facts. No, ALL churches are not in decline, several large orthodox Christian churches are growing.

    Assemblies of God (very conservative)
    1960: 508,000
    2009: 2,914,000

    United Pentecostal (very conservative)
    1960: 175,000
    2009: 646,000

    Church of God (ultra conservative)
    1960: 170,000
    2009: 1,076,000

    Presbyterian Church in America (broke away from liberal PCUSA)
    1973: 41,322
    2009: 341,210

    Evangelical Free Church
    1960: 31,543
    2008: 356,000

    Church of the Nazarene
    1960: 307,000
    2009: 645,000

    Christian and Missionary Alliance
    1960: 59,000
    2009: 432,000

    Mormons (not orthodox in theology, but conservative on social issues)
    1960: 1,486,000
    2009: 6,058,000

    Seventh-Day Adventists (not orthodox in theology, but conservative on social issues)
    1960: 317,000
    2009: 1,043,000

    Data is from the Association of Religion Data Archives.
    thearda.com

    Btw, you won’t ever live to see the Southern Baptists shut down, they are at present larger than all the pro-gay churches put together.

    I gather you are itching to flip your middle finger at Christians, but I’m not interested in pursuing this conversation further. There are plenty of blogs for the religious left.

  9. Comment by Ty Hendricks on August 6, 2015 at 7:18 pm

    Why would I be “itching to flip off Christians?” I am a Christian.

    Sir or Ma’am (sorry don’t know which), I would almost guarantee that we agree on a majority of Christian issues except for the Same-Sex issue.

    I am sorry if I somehow offended you.

  10. Comment by Ty Hendricks on August 6, 2015 at 7:21 pm

    My point is that one can be a Christian and be accepting of Same-sex marriage.

  11. Comment by Orter T. on August 8, 2015 at 1:12 am

    You neglected to comment on the growth of the Wesleyan Church and The Assemblies of God, as well as the explosive growth of The United Methodist Church in conservative Africa!
    And as for your previous comment about we focus too much on this issue giving the impression it is The Sin: I am more than ready to end this fruitless debate and move on, It is the proponents that will not accept a different view and thus keep stirring the pot! If you want me to respect your freedom of belief then you have to respect mine. Your freedom ends where mine begins and my freedom ends where yours begins. That is a basic understanding that has been lost a long time ago!

  12. Comment by BJ on August 7, 2015 at 3:54 pm

    Would you be willing to bless my adultery the way you would bless the sin of homosexuality? What about my lying or gossip? If not, then it is you who are elevating this issue.

  13. Comment by Ty Hendricks on August 7, 2015 at 4:10 pm

    My response to that is sins are not mine to condemn, only Gods.

    I have not heard this argument, it is an interesting one -possibly more plausible than others I have heard.

    What are your thoughts on the evolution of society and the Bible.

    Thanks for the thoughts!

  14. Comment by BJ on August 7, 2015 at 4:22 pm

    I treat the bible the way the writers of the bible expected it to be treated, as Scripture. I feel like if it is not scripture but merely the words of men, then they could be wrong. How can I have any confidence that I have salvation, or even need salvation, or that sin even exists, if the Word is not scripture?

    That is why I try to emulate the prophets and apostles and call people to repentance. I expect that of myself and God commands us to call everyone to repentance. Not because we are perfect but because the Perfect One calls us to it.

  15. Comment by Ty Hendricks on August 7, 2015 at 4:37 pm

    And I can agree with every bit of that except I can’t accept the Word as infallible, only inspired. I don’t believe the writers were authoring in a vacuum. It was under the inspiration of God, but through their cultural lens.

    “I expect that of myself and God commands us to call everyone to repentance. Not because we are perfect but because the Perfect One calls us to it.”

    I like this thought, the only problem I have is no matter how sincere we repent we are never perfect and thus cannot cast that first stone or remove the dust from our brothers’ eyes.

  16. Comment by BJ on August 7, 2015 at 6:16 pm

    Unfortunately I don’t think you can have it both ways. If the Bible is fallible and there are errors in it then how can it possibly be the the inspired Word of God unless God is also fallible. Moreover, if the Word of God is fallible, then how can we know which parts are in error in which part are correct? You claimed that lying and adultery and gossip were sins. How do you know?Maybe the bbiblical writers were wrong like they were with homosexuality? It seems to me that if you lose infallibility you lose inspiration.

  17. Comment by MarcoPolo on August 10, 2015 at 9:01 am

    As complex as the Bible is, what with the diversity of Books, Letters, Admonishments, Parables, and Inspirational passages, it is highly likely that there are at least some fallacies within it’s contents.

    It isn’t necessary to have it be absolutely 100% to be believable… just enough to be practical. As we must remember, the written word has undergone many interpretations that depart from the original lexicons.

  18. Comment by MaxMan on September 17, 2015 at 10:40 am

    How can it be infallible when it’s been tinkered with non-stop for 1,500 years?

  19. Comment by Joe on August 8, 2015 at 4:13 pm

    Including Lion-hunting.

  20. Comment by mitchw7959 on August 6, 2015 at 9:45 pm

    This Christian–baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost and sealed as Christ’s own forever–supports same-sex marriage. So does my husband, our families, our rector, and our bishop. We don’t really care how loudly the impotent IRD fundamentalists howl or how long they hold their breath in protest.

    P.S. If Ryan Anderson is such the expert on marriage, why has he never got up the nerve to put his money where his big mouth is? Waiting for the youngest Duggar girl to clear fifth grade?

  21. Comment by BJ on August 7, 2015 at 4:26 pm

    Wow, such harsh degrading language towards another fellow believer. For a Christian baptized as Christ’s own forever, you seem to not consider His words about controlling the tongue or degrading people. I guess same-sex couples get your blessing, but watch out if you believe the bible and are single.

  22. Comment by Brad F on August 7, 2015 at 7:16 pm

    Wow, so much Christian love in your post, glad you are sealed as Christ’s own forever.

    The apostle Paul is the authority, not some geriatric homosexual.

  23. Comment by MaxMan on September 17, 2015 at 10:37 am

    Actually, in the past 7 years, the numbers of christians in America has decreased by almost 8% (according to Pew Research Centre). So, unsurprisingly, you’re talking out of your anus.

    Any decline in christianity is a good thing for humanity.

  24. Comment by jjgrndisland on August 6, 2015 at 3:31 pm

    It’s a sick society, what else can we expect?

  25. Comment by Ty Hendricks on August 6, 2015 at 6:05 pm

    What religious liberty is being infringed upon because two people can now be wed?

    You nor I are under legal pressure to officiate a marriage of any couple whether heterosexual or Homosexual.

    As for Judicial Activism that seems bogus. The court heard a case ( Constitutional mandate), rules on the case (Constitutional mandate), and the effect was the clarification of an amendment (namely the 14th). The Majority Opinion clearly states that religious institutions are exempted.

  26. Comment by Gary Whiteman on August 8, 2015 at 9:10 am

    Not hard to figure why a homosexual would get a job teaching junior high kids. It’s like a fox getting paid to guard the chickens.

  27. Comment by Greenmachine1221 on August 9, 2015 at 2:37 pm

    The rainbow gaystapo has already indicated they plan to go after religious schools and organizations that refuse to capitulate on gay “marriage”.

    http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/02/23/archdiocese-san-francisco-lawmakers-investigation-catholic-high-schools-teacher-morality-clauses-archbishop-salvatore-cordileone-assemblymembers-phil-ting-kevin-mullin/

    For instance, in San Franciso the Catholic Bishop wants his Catholic school teachers to commit to teaching Catholic doctrine, with Catholic teaching on sexuality certainly a part of this agreement. In other words, he wants to ensure that Catholic schools are teaching WHAT CATHOLICISM HAS ALWAYS TAUGHT in regards to human sexuality. Well, this sent the secular leftists in San Fran into apoplectic mode. We now even have California LAWMAKERS threatening an investigation in order to intimidate the Bishop. Think about that, politicians are literally threatening leaders of a religious denomination because they don’t like the denomination’s views on marriage and sexuality. That is incredibly frightening, and sadly this is just the beginning. I though leftists believed in separation of church and state? Why are leftist politicians using their power and the government’s monopoly on violence to try and influence and change the beliefs and practices of a private religious organization?

  28. Comment by Jon Lindgren on August 7, 2015 at 12:37 pm

    I debated Ryan Anderson when he came through a year or so ago. In his previous book he made a claim children with gay parents do worse the those with a straight mother and father. He used an academic study to justify his position. He ignored a follow up conclusion the study’s author had published, that the children of long term gay couples did about the same as long term straight couples, that for the most part the children of gay couples did well and other disclaimers. I came to not respect the work of Ryan Anderson.

  29. Comment by Brad F on August 7, 2015 at 7:08 pm

    No such thing as “gay parents,” every child born has a father (male) and mother (female). No human being has ever had two moms or two dads. Bringing a child up in an atmosphere of sexual predation is child abuse. Everyone knows horror stories told by people actually raised in these toxic circumstances. Homosexuals cannot produce children together, they only adopt children so as to prove that they are equal with normal couples, but that is farce.

  30. Comment by mitchw7959 on August 7, 2015 at 7:26 pm

    So come on, go on and find every gay or lesbian couple in your neighborhood who are raising kids or who have custody of children, and see if you can get the police or the district attorney to file any charges. Surely they will take your word for it and do everything possible to remove the children. Go ahead, and see how you are laughed out of every court in the country.

  31. Comment by MarcoPolo on August 10, 2015 at 8:17 am

    With that attitude, you really don’t have the compassion for humans that your Christ espouses.

    Adoption is a GOOD thing for any child without a family. Why would you prevent that when two loving, committed (now married) couple seek to adopt?

    Your understanding of LGBT people seems stunted and ignorant if you conflate marriage equality with pedophilia.

  32. Comment by Brad F on August 10, 2015 at 12:07 pm

    Hey, Methuselah, STOP MEDDLING in Christians’ business, OK? You have stated you are NOT a Christian, but you troll on Christian blogs, posing as the one who decides what is and is not Christian behavior. What Christians do is NOT your business. Meddling is what old WOMEN do, not old men. Go hang out with some other Woodstock fossils like yourself.

  33. Comment by MarcoPolo on August 11, 2015 at 10:43 am

    Sorry to upset you, Brad F. but I have as much right to be on this blog/thread as you do. Do I have to be a Christian to voice my opinion on a Christian site?

    I don’t decide what is and isn’t Christian behavior. I simply comment on what seems to be incongruences with some Christian religionistas reasoning.
    It’s pretty obvious how skewed some people get over religion.

    Thanks for the timeless, classic analogy of the age old sage, Methuselah!
    …Quite the compliment!

  34. Comment by Brad F on August 11, 2015 at 1:56 pm

    There is no “sage” named Methuselah, the Bible merely records that he lived a long time. Obviously old age does not make someone wise. Your zeal in scolding Christians is matched by your ignorance of the Bible. Not much chance of learning anything new at your age.

  35. Comment by MarcoPolo on August 11, 2015 at 5:12 pm

    I’m pretty sure we all can learn something at any age.
    Old age should render more experiences, thus more wisdom?
    I’ve never claimed to know the Bible, as it’s not my book of reference generally. And I didn’t think I was promoting anything that was speculative, or untrue…but ignorance of it is still possible.
    Sage is a loose term to suggest time tested character traits that are admirable. Nothing more!

  36. Comment by MaxMan on September 17, 2015 at 10:25 am

    My best mate has a gay dad. The dad suppressed it for years, had a kid with a woman, then embraced his natural sexuality. So please tell me again how there’s no such things as gay parents.

  37. Comment by Greenmachine1221 on August 9, 2015 at 2:50 pm

    You are so blinded by ideology that you can no longer think clearly about this topic. Gay “marriage” represents an ideology that declares biological ties meaningless. An ideology that favors the commodification of human reproduction, birth, wombs, and human life. An ideology that attaches no importance to life infused with an interpersonal narrative.

    The statists/global corporatism (same thing now in the west) latched on to this issue with such intensity because it perfectly serves their goal of exploitation and control. As humans we are naturally products of interpersonal relations, and the law has always historically reflected that reality. Gay “marriage” radically redefines the concept of family, and therefore radically redefines what it means to be human. A gay “family” can not exist but for state and technological provision of children. In the eyes of the state, because of gay “marriage”, natural procreation and technological provision of children are now viewed the same. What gay “marriage” does is redefine heterosexual marriage in the image of non-procreative homosexual unions.

    Why, then, should Christians worry, if this is all just a matter of terminology? Can we not live with differing definitions of marriage? Perhaps, in order to safeguard the churches from pressures to conform to the norm, we should now welcome a withdrawal from the churches of their rights as a civil marriage broker. This would leave the churches free, in their turn, to claim that only natural and sacramental marriage are genuinely “marriage,” while state marriage is mere civil union. They could trump secularisation by declaring that the era of civil marriage had been a failed experiment.

    This may, indeed, be the direction that the churches now need to take. However, the graver fear surrounding the new legislation is that secular thought will not so readily let go of the demand for absolutely equal rights based on identical definitions. In that case, we face an altogether more drastic prospect. Not only would “marriage” have been redefined so as to include gay marriage, it would inevitably be redefined even for heterosexual people in homosexual terms. Thus “consummation” and “adultery” would cease to be seen as having any relevance to the binding and loosing of straight unions.

    Many may welcome such a development as yet a further removal of state intrusion into our private lives, but that would be to fail to consider all the implications. In the first place, it would end public recognition of the importance of marriage as a union of sexual difference. But the joining together and harmonisation of the asymmetrical perspectives of the two sexes are crucial both to kinship relations over time and to social peace. Where the reality of sexual difference is denied, then it gets reinvented in perverse ways – just as the over-sexualisation of women and the confinement of men to a marginalised machismo.

    Secondly, it would end the public legal recognition of a social reality defined in terms of the natural link between sex and procreation. In direct consequence, the natural children of heterosexual couples would then be only legally their children if the state decided that they might be legally “adopted” by them.

    And this, I argue, reveals what is really at issue here. There was no demand for “gay marriage” and this has nothing to do with gay rights. Instead, it is a strategic move in the modern state’s drive to assume direct control over the reproduction of the population, bypassing our interpersonal encounters. This is not about natural justice, but the desire on the part of biopolitical tyranny to destroy marriage and the family as the most fundamental mediating social institution.

    Heterosexual exchange and reproduction has always been the very “grammar” of social relating as such. The abandonment of this grammar would thus imply a society no longer primarily constituted by extended kinship, but rather by state control and merely monetary exchange and reproduction.

    For the individual, the experience of a natural-cultural unity is most fundamentally felt in the sense that her natural birth is from an interpersonal (and so “cultural”) act of loving encounter – even if this be but a one-night stand. This provides a sense that one’s very biological roots are suffused with an interpersonal narrative. Again, to lose this “grammar” would be to compromise our deepest sense of humanity, and risk a further handing over of power to market and state tyrannies supported by myths both of pure human nature and technocratic artifice.

    It is for this reason that practices of surrogate motherhood and sperm-donation (as distinct from the artificial assistance of a personal sexual union) should be rejected. For the biopolitical rupture which they invite is revealed by the irresolvable impasse to which they give rise. Increasingly, children resulting from anonymous artificial insemination are rightly demanding to know who their natural parents are, for they know that, in part, we indeed are our biology. But this request is in principle intolerable for donors who gave their sperm or wombs on the understanding that this was an anonymous donation for public benefit.

    The recipe for psychological confusion, family division and social conflict involved here is all too evident and cannot be averted. In this instance we have sleep-walked into the legalisation of practices whose logic and implications have never been seriously debated.

    From this it follows that we should not re-define birth as essentially artificial and disconnected from the sexual act – which by no means implies that each and every sexual act must be open to the possibility of procreation, only that the link in general should not be severed. The price for this severance is surely the commodification of birth by the market, the quasi-eugenic control of reproduction by the state, and the corruption of the parent-child relation to one of a narcissistic self-projection.

    Once the above practices have been rejected, then it follows that a gay relationship cannot qualify as a marriage in terms of its orientation to having children, because the link between an interpersonal and a natural act is entirely crucial to the definition and character of marriage.

    The fact that this optimum condition cannot be fulfilled by many valid heterosexual marriages is entirely irrelevant, for they still fulfill through ideal intention this linkage, besides sustaining the union of sexual difference which is the other aspect of marriage’s inherently heterosexual character.

    http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2013/04/23/3743531.htm

  38. Comment by MarcoPolo on August 10, 2015 at 8:36 am

    I think we would all agree that there are more than enough (heterosexual) married people who will reproduce for sheer pride of perpetuating their genes.
    If that’s all that it takes to qualify for matrimonial legitimacy, then we are no further along in our societal evolution.

    BTW, almost anytime something is promoted by The Heritage Foundation, it is going to be against secular autonomy.

  39. Comment by Greenmachine1221 on August 10, 2015 at 10:37 am

    So you favor the commodification of human reproduction ? Gay men paying for third world wombs? Severing children from the mother and/or father who created them , as a prerequisite condition of their very existence? You are a cruel , terrible person indeed.

  40. Comment by Greenmachine1221 on August 10, 2015 at 10:38 am

    “Sexual autonomy at any cost !”

  41. Comment by Jon Lindgren on August 7, 2015 at 1:17 pm

    There is another hole in argument’s like Anderson’s, married couples without children. When asked about that Anderson slipped by saying some couples sadly are unable to have children but that cannot be used to prevent them from marrying. What about couples who say before they are married they do not like children and have no intention of having any? Setting out a principle that the purpose of marriage is children has a hole in it big enough to drive a truck through it.

  42. Comment by JeffreyRO55 on August 7, 2015 at 5:51 pm

    Anderson and other religio-homophobes often slip when the topic of childless married couples comes up. They claim it’s too intrusive to exclude infertile straight couples (but evidently it’s not too intrusive to exclude gay couple with children!).

    But if they want to redefine marriage to be about procreation, what’s so hard about putting signs in marriage license offices stating something like, “Marriage is reserved for couples capable of procreating, and intending to do so. Marriage is NOT for infertile couples or couples who don’t want children.”? Couples can self-select out of marriage, without being quizzed about their procreational abilities, or lack thereof.

  43. Comment by Joe on August 8, 2015 at 4:10 pm

    If marriage isn’t about procreation, then there is no longer a reasonable argument why marriage is restricted to just two people.

  44. Comment by MarcoPolo on August 10, 2015 at 8:40 am

    Joe, Do you walk to school, or carry your lunch? (sarcasm).

    Are you really concerned that if Marriage isn’t exclusively for procreation, that polygamy is the end goal?

  45. Comment by Greenmachine1221 on August 10, 2015 at 10:43 am

    There is no principle left by which to limit marriage to only two people . Just like there is no principle left to defend fidelity and monogamy in marriage. That is Ryan’s whole point, the arguments for gay marriage basically render all traditional norms meaningless. Traditional norms of monogamy, fidelity, exclusivity.

  46. Comment by MarcoPolo on August 11, 2015 at 10:47 am

    How is fidelity or monogamy rendered meaningless by the Supreme Court decision on Marriage Equality?

  47. Comment by Greenmachine1221 on August 11, 2015 at 1:17 pm

    Gay marriage proponents and sexual revolution apologists have redefined marriage. According to them , marriage is just about fulfilling emotional and physical satisfaction between consenting adults. It is basically just a legal contract that can be broken at will for any reason, because all that matters is the desire and satisfaction of the adults involved. If this is all marriage consists of , if these are the principles marriage is based on, then there is absolutely no reason to justify denying marriage between more than 2 people.

  48. Comment by MarcoPolo on August 11, 2015 at 5:05 pm

    Except that there are already laws against polygamy.
    Aside from that, you pretty well summed up the marriage contract requirements.

  49. Comment by Greenmachine1221 on August 11, 2015 at 6:39 pm

    (Person who doesn’t seem to comprehend sentences well)

  50. Comment by MarcoPolo on August 11, 2015 at 8:22 pm

    ????
    I guess not!

  51. Comment by Greenmachine1221 on August 11, 2015 at 7:20 pm

    LOL, just like there were laws limiting marriage to only heterosexual couples.

    That is the point! If sexual complimentarity and procreative potential are excluded from our definition of marriage, then there is no rational basis to exclude polygamous or polyamorous relationships from marriage law. The number two just becomes arbitrary. If marriage is just about a contract between people who want to derive satisfaction from each other, live in a household together, and share income, then the number two is arbitrary and discriminatory. Polygamy and polyamory will most certainly become legal in the near future. But that was the whole point from the beginning, to destroy marriage and family. To increase the state’s power over our interpersonal relationships and gain control over reproduction of the population. Most people have been duped, they thought this was just about “love is love”. The intellectual leaders of this movement very early on told us they wanted to destroy marriage and the family.

    http://www.beyondmarriage.org/
    “Households in which there is more than one conjugal partner”

  52. Comment by MarcoPolo on August 11, 2015 at 8:32 pm

    Thanks for sharing the link.
    I still didn’t read where they seek to DESTROY marriage and the family.

    I could be naive to some more nefarious movement, but the one you shared, showed no serious threat to the status-quo.

    The sky is not going to fall just because of the recent Supreme Court decision.
    ….Simmer down now!

  53. Comment by Greenmachine1221 on August 11, 2015 at 10:20 pm

    (Person who can’t read very well)

  54. Comment by MarcoPolo on August 12, 2015 at 8:37 am

    Again, I read your link, and if you can’t illuminate your fears by explaining better, I can’t communicate with you.
    I never get tired of people being stubborn, as that just comes with the territory.

    Namaste’

  55. Comment by Greenmachine1221 on August 12, 2015 at 9:27 am

    “Households in which there is more than one conjugal partner”

  56. Comment by MarcoPolo on August 12, 2015 at 9:43 am

    This exchange has gone on for so long, I’m no longer sure what your original point was.

    Why can’t families have more than one set of parents? Have you never lived in a Commune or similar living arrangement?

    I know plenty of children who were raised within that habitat, and they are much more secure in their knowledge of the world and how families operate.

    I seriously don’t see why anyone should fear the evolution of the “Nuclear Family”.
    But that’s just me!

  57. Comment by Greenmachine1221 on August 12, 2015 at 2:28 pm

    Households with more than one conjugal partner means polyamorous and polygamous households. So you support legal recognition of polygamy , got it. Thanks for being honest.

  58. Comment by MarcoPolo on August 12, 2015 at 5:21 pm

    NO, I don’t support polygamy.

    The recent Supreme Court decision has provided what I was hoping for, and that is allowance of same-sex partners to be legally married. That’s just for TWO individuals to marry one another. Any more participants would qualify as polygamy, and I don’t advocate for that. Also, the law doesn’t accommodate that arrangement.

    Many of us have enjoyed polyamorous relations, but that was before marriage, and maturity. I do advocate waiting ’til one is thirty years old before considering marriage.
    That way they can check out the world and all it’s flavors and scents!

  59. Comment by Greenmachine1221 on August 9, 2015 at 2:51 pm

    Most married couples CAN and DO have children. If marriage has nothing to do with children then it wouldn’t exist in the first place. You seem dense.

  60. Comment by MaxMan on September 17, 2015 at 10:31 am

    Elderly people get married to. By his logic, they should be denied their licences too!

  61. Comment by BJ on August 7, 2015 at 4:01 pm

    “If John Wesley gave us nothing else he gave us a vibrant and renewed
    emphasis on the importance and beauty of holiness and holy living.”

    Well said. This must apply to our own marriages. We must make marriage holy again. Part of the reason that same-sex “marriage” has been accepted so quickly in the culture is that the culture has pretty much quit caring about marriage as an institution. Why stop same-sex couples from marrying when marriage is not such a big deal anyway? You are correct that holy living is important. Sadly, what we are seeing is the effect of it lack.

  62. Comment by JeffreyRO55 on August 7, 2015 at 5:48 pm

    Another reason that same-sex marriage have been accepted to readily: the lives of gay people aren’t so different from the lives of straight people, including their romantic lives.

  63. Comment by Joe on August 8, 2015 at 4:05 pm

    Because sodomy isn’t that big of a deal. The truth is the best argument. How many young people don’t actually know what sodomy is?

  64. Comment by MarcoPolo on August 10, 2015 at 8:09 am

    Many people think sodomy is simply anal sex. And of course, we know Straight people would NEVER do that! But that’s just one form of sodomy.
    If one is to believe that heterosexuals make up the majority of people in America, then there needs to be some levity regarding WHO is performing some form of sodomy at any given time.
    You can’t brand Gays as the only practitioners.

    Let’s not condemn people simply because they don’t fall into your definition of how people should live.

    The “Traditional” type of marriage will survive expansion of the institution… but will the Conservatives ever realize that their marriages are safe?

  65. Comment by JeffreyRO55 on August 7, 2015 at 5:46 pm

    Religionists are free to view marriage however they wish. They are not free to impose a religious or personal view of what they want marriage to be, on others. We have a constitution that forbids that sort of thing.

    Just as religionists are free to abhor and abstain from biblically prohibited divorce, divorce is still legal, so that non-religionists may partake. Religionists need to view same-sex marriage the way they do pre-marital sex, adultery and divorce: legal, but off limits to themselves.

  66. Comment by Joe on August 8, 2015 at 4:11 pm

    And slavery? Prostitution?

  67. Comment by Reason0verhate on August 7, 2015 at 6:28 pm

    Ryan Anderson must be doing something right, the mention of his name sends the sexual activists into fire-ant mode immediately. He seems sane and grounded enough to follow the old age, “Consider the source.” Slander and insults from the degenerate left should be worn like medals.

  68. Comment by Paul Hoskins on August 7, 2015 at 7:25 pm

    We live in a culture that obsesses over “environmental impact,” if you build a house or a place of business or any kind of public works, you have to jump through a hundred hoops to ensure that some species of toad or turtle won’t be negatively impacted, but look how cavalier we are about redefining something as old as human history.

  69. Comment by MaxMan on September 17, 2015 at 10:30 am

    “Anderson’s work is the polar opposite of “hateful,” “bigoted,” or “homophobic.””

    Drivel. How can one extol the virtues of denying gay people equal rights as straight people and NOT be homophobic?

    You christians love talking about “the truth about marriage”. But the only “truth” you’re concerned with is the one in your bibles, and that particular book of magic stories isn’t, and never will be, accepted as fact.

The work of IRD is made possible by your generous contributions.

Receive expert analysis in your inbox.