What are the inherent liabilities of same-sex marriage?

In television’s Modern Family, Cameron and Mitchell adopt a child. NBC’s The New Normal proudly showcases a gay couple and surrogate mother. And on Grey’s Anatomy, Arizona and Callie are pronounced wife and wife with pomp and ceremony. Little wonder then that politicians like the Clinton’s have had a radical change of heart and mind. Hillary Clinton, in lock-step with Bill, now says she supports gay marriage both “personally and as a matter of policy and law.” As noted by Associated Press writers Julie Page and Ken Thomas, “public opinion on gay marriage has shifted perhaps more rapidly than on any other major issue in recent times.”  In fact, holdouts are routinely relegated the status of Bible thumping bigots. But are they really? Reason answers emphatically, No!

First is the matter of the social sciences. Cross cultural studies simply do not lie. They are virtually unanimous in demonstrating that a child is far better served by a mother and a father than father/father or mother/mother coupling. This of course is not to suggest that exceptions do not exist. Rather it is to underscore what is plainly and simply a statistical reality.

Furthermore, we should underscore the biological reality of sexual reproduction. Every organ in the human body is self-sufficient to perform its intended function except for one. Natural reproduction always, always, always requires a coupling of male and female. As Dr. Jay Richards has well written in the Christian Research Journal, “Marriage protects, reflects, and reinforces this powerful complementary, reproductive part of our natures.” As such, marriage “is a comprehensive union of body, mind, emotion, and soul, a proper end of which is children.”

Finally, we should note the hazards inherent in marriage redefinition. It is not too much to say that marriage redefinition open Pandora’s Box and spells the death knell to civil society. Fairly applied, the logic of the Clintons and Obama White House would apply equally to any voluntary relationship that one can conceive of. Put another way, marriage redefinition erodes the rational basis for rejecting aberrations ranging from polygamy to incest. As one can well imagine, the social impact on women and children in particular is singularly draconian.

In sum, marriage cannot be reduced to politically correct rhetoric or political whims. It is a matter of natural law. Says Richards, “Rights come from our nature, and our nature comes from God. If you deny that, then you deny the basis of all our other rights.” In the end, redefining marriage strikes a mortal blow to the foundation of a free society.

Oxford scholar Os Guinness was right to wonder whether the stones of the Washington Monument will escape the fate of the Parthenon, the pyramids, and the Hanging Gardens of Babylon.

—Hank Hanegraaff

 See also Jay W. Richards, “To Defend Marriage, We Should Learn a Lesson from Apologetics,” Christian Research Journal, vol. 35, no. 4, 2012.

Bible Answer Man interview with Jay W. Richards, “What is marriage?”