“In Defense of Marriage” – Jeremy Cordon

America is unique in that our revolution against tyranny ended in the creation of a free republic. The ideals of freedom that are enshrined in our constitution make up the DNA of American political thought. No citizen of any other nation in the world can claim as high a level of freedom. This is in part why it is difficult to address the issue of gay marriage for those that believe in individual liberty and freedom.

The argument is a familiar one. “If the relationship is between consenting adults, then who are you to tell me how to live? Why should you be able to define marriage? Why are you trying to take away my freedom by denying me legal rights?” On the surface, all of these statements are compelling and may make you wonder what the big deal is with gay marriage anyway. Is it really so evil?

The issue here is veiled as being a question of freedom. By arguing from this perspective, a person of faith is at a disadvantage, because the day that the American people gave the government the power to define marriage is the day that we gave up much of our ability to defend it. This started in the 1860s with the first laws in the United States regarding marriage. During that time, the issue of polygamy was at the forefront of every newspaper on the East coast. There was a strong public demand to ban it. The Anti-Bigamy Act was signed by Abraham Lincoln in 1862 during the Civil War. Up until then, marriage was simply a private covenant. Until the 1980s “common law” marriages (those effected without a government license) were still valid in much of America.

Take a moment to reflect on the irony that the most common “pro-gay” arguments can equally be applied to polygamists. If you really want to make gay marriage advocates think, then I recommend using their own words against them in defense of polygamous marriage. For example, “Okay, consenting adults can do whatever they want. Would you be okay with polygamy then? Would you be willing to fight for it?” They won’t agree because they see that relationship as oppressive to women (the same way many of them view traditional marriage). But who are they to judge the actions of consenting adults, right? For gay marriage advocates, it’s only wrong to judge the value of a relationship when it’s a Christian judging theirs.

The “gay rights” movement has not stopped and will not stop at marriage. The LGBT community doesn’t simply seek tax benefits. They want everyone else and their children to be forced to accept their lifestyle choices. Aaron and Melissa Klein of Oregon are bakers who were recently sued for refusing to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding. The lesbian couple won the lawsuit and now the Klein family is subject to hundreds-of-thousands of dollars in fines. The Kleins were only sticking up for their religious rights. The Oregon Equality Act of 2007 makes it illegal to discriminate against homosexuals and many other states have similar laws now. A pro-gay ideological class is forming, and anyone that doesn’t tolerate them will not be tolerated by the State. There are similar lawsuits against photographers who refuse service on religious grounds.

According to the precedent being set in court, the right of homosexuals to be accepted supersedes the rights of religious individuals to object in any way. How much longer will it be before churches and clergymen are sued for not wanting to perform same sex marriages in their churches, congregations, mosques, and temples? The courts have determined that freedom of religion is an invalid reason for “discrimination.” The legal implications are horrific; churches could be sued out of existence or forced underground. So much for living in a free country.

At a writer’s conference in Sydney Australia, one prominent lesbian activist by the name of Masha Gessen made the following insightful statements:


  • “Gay marriage is a lie.”
  • “Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there.”
  • “It’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist.” (This statement is met with very loud applause by her pro-gay marriage audience.)

Ms. Gessen is simply confirming what defenders of traditional marriage have been saying all along. The objective of “gay rights” activists doesn’t end with marriage. They want to indoctrinate our kids with their values in public schools and through adoption. They want to destroy marriage as an institution. The destruction and vilification of traditional man-woman marriage is Satan’s chief goal.

Marriage is a covenant between a man, a woman, and God. A free person does not need to ask permission from any worldly government for this God-given right. No government has the authority to change marriage, or to force individuals to accept an abomination as valid. The government has nothing to do with the institution of marriage and should remove itself from the business of trying to define it. If couples want legal protections when they get married, then they should write up a private contract with a lawyer. By removing government from marriage, we believers will be free to practice our faith and the LGBT community will be free to have their little ceremonies and pretend that they are married. Religious adoption clinics will still be able to refuse to give homosexuals children, and gay couples will be free to bake their own damn cake.

Besides, taking terrible profile pictures, Jeremy also who works with libertarian think-tank Libertas Institute of Utah and is a graduate in Political Science from the University of Utah

Besides, taking terrible profile pictures, Jeremy also works with libertarian think-tank Libertas Institute of Utah and is a graduate in Political Science from the University of Utah


About the Author

Jeremy Cordon
Besides, taking terrible profile pictures, Jeremy also works with libertarian think-tank Libertas Institute of Utah and is a graduate in Political Science from the University of Utah

Be the first to comment on "“In Defense of Marriage” – Jeremy Cordon"

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.