Love is love - as three gay men now women marry each other?

- March 05, 2015

"Love is love, after all."

That's the rationale offered by one of three gay men who were all married to each other on Valentine's Day in Thailand. You can read the story here.

And — least people scoff and think that this is happening a world away — you can read about Massachusetts' first lesbian "throuple" and their anticipated first childhere.

Love is love, the left is fond of saying. When you get right down to it, that is really the only rationale offered for redefining marriage — they say that redefining marriage is just about allowing people who love each other to come together and celebrate their love. Disallowing that is discrimination against those who simply love differently.

Except it's not. Marriage is so much more than merely a relationship of love.

Marriage is an institution that serves to bind the complementary halves of humanity — male and female — in a publicly declared relationship that is designed to be stable, permanent, exclusive and faithful. Why? Because men and women coming together in holy matrimony offers the potential for children... and children are why the government is interested in marriage in the first place.

Marriage is the only social institution we have that ties biological fathers to any offspring they produce. Take that away by removing the complementary spousal aspect and you send the undeniable message that fathers (and mothers, for that matter) are optional. Our co-founder Maggie Gallagher often noted that whenever a child is born, a mother will be nearby, but not always so for a father. In a society already suffering from — as President Obama has admitted — a "crisis of fatherlessness" we will undeniably see the social costs associated with redefining marriage.

Redefining marriage to allow same-sex couples to 'marry' fundamentally shifts the purpose of marriage in society. Suddenly, marriage becomes an institution centered about the satisfaction and fulfillment of adult desires and needs rather than promoting a stable and secure environment for children.

I have done countless interviews over the years and debated numerous proponents of redefined marriage. And in almost every one, I ask the basic question: if the complementarity of men and women are denied as an essential element of marriage, what is the basis for limiting marriage to two people?

I haven't ever received a credible answer.

And, as you and I can see from the stories linked above, redefined marriage — or, perhaps more accurately, completely undefined marriage — inevitably leads to the abandonment of every other facet of marriage we hold dear.

If you doubt this at all, just look to the state of Utah, where a federal judge struck down part of that state's anti-polygamy laws just six months ago. The basis for the decision? A 14th amendment, equal protection argument nearly identical to that used across the country in legal cases pertaining to redefining marriage. Apparently the judge didn't bother to consult his history, because Utah's admission to the union was predicated on its abolishment of polygamy and its adherence to marriage as the union of one man and one woman.