“Marriage equality” is not an addition to an existing law. It’s a radical transformation of what marriage is in our society. It undermines marriage’s original role in preserving small government, protecting children’s rights to a mom and a dad, and preserving societal stability. It achieves that through more government encroachment into the marriage business. It makes mothers and fathers optional for children by law. Through these new changes in the law, the government is further denying all children the equal opportunity to be raised by a loving mother and father.
Also, “marriage equality” leads the state to create a new definition of the family unit in society that undermines the natural family unit. We must remember this: the natural family unit was never created by the state. It’s a foe of the state, because its strong presence in society prevents the state from creating massive, inefficient welfare programs. When our nation was sustained by the natural family unit decades ago, divorce rates were down, the economy was doing well, and fewer people relied on welfare programs to get by in life. This explains why the natural family unit, held intact by marriage, is the best shield against big government and a true anchor of freedom in society. When children grow up in intact families led by a married mother and father, they are less likely to experience poverty. Even the liberal Brookings Institution agrees with that statement.
Essentially, the government’s further encroachment into the marriage business will lead people to believe that the natural family unit is no longer the best solution to our nation’s societal problems. Why? Because, according to the government, every type of family unit, whether or not a creation of the state, is the same. This opens the door for government determining what’s best for society and making the marriage business more bureaucratic and dependent on welfare programs. In addition, this change in the law will further impact our culture. We will continue to see TV shows and public schools embrace this change and undermine the natural family unit’s importance in society. It will take even more time for our nation to have a strong marriage culture, sustained by the natural family unit.
Besides discussing this movement’s true intentions, we must discuss how it has achieved its goals so far. This movement has mainly used judicial fiat and the legislative process, not voter input, to redefine marriage, one state at a time. Left-leaning activists, lawyers, and lobbyists, along with activist judges, are making these changes a reality. If this movement says that most Americans support its mission, why is it largely avoiding their input at the ballot box to confirm its claim? That’s something to think about.
We should continue to focus on this movement, because it is punishing people who think differently with the government’s help. It is proving to be a threat to religious freedom and small businesses. Ironically, it promised the American people that it would not go in that direction. In the last few years, photographers, bakers, hotel owners, and florists have been threatened by the government and “marriage equality” supporters for not participating in same-sex ceremonies or weddings. It’s unjust for the government to fine people who don’t want to participate in a same-sex ceremony. This happened to florist Barronelle Stutzman last year. It’s also unjust for same-sex couples to help close small businesses that hold different beliefs on marriage and family life. This happened to Sweet Cakes, which moved its operations online after being bullied by “marriage equality” activists.
If you highly value freedom and liberty, pay attention to how this movement chooses which Americans to respect and which Americans to punish, with the help of the government. This is the same movement that says it values tolerance. If people decide to ignore it, more First Amendment assaults will occur. If we want to live in a free society, we must hold this movement accountable for its actions and challenge it when it attacks our fundamental freedoms. We should not stand by as it silences people with labels like “homophobic” and threatens them with anti-freedom lawsuits.