Years ago, before the Obergefelle Supreme Court decision that imposed a radical redefinition of marriage on the entire country and before intellectually and morally vacuous Illinois Democrats decided to legally recognize intrinsically non-marital homoerotic unions as marriages, I was invited on a radio program to discuss “gay marriage.” The other guest was ACLU Illinois spokesman Ed Yohnka. During the program, I asked Yohnka, who was shilling for the legalization of homo-marriage, this question: Why should marriage be limited to two people?
Yohnka deflected, so I asked again. Again, Yohnka dodged. I then said to the host that the reason Yohnka refused to answer the question was that he couldn’t. If, as lefties have long argued, marriage has no intrinsic connection to biological sex, or to reproductive potential, or to the inherent rights and needs of children, then there remains no rational way to limit marriage to two people.
The smug radicals who live and move and have their being among decent, wise Americans mocked those who predicted that the legalization of homo-marriage would lead ineluctably to legalized poly-unions. The smugsters—or deceivers—screeched “false slippery slope argument” at anyone who predicted the rise of throuples, quadrouples, and quintouples. But here we are right where conservatives predicted.
West Hollywood just joined Oakland, CA; Berkeley, CA; Somerville, MA; Cambridge, MA; Arlington, MA; Hazel Park, MI; Portland, OR; Astoria, OR; Olympia, WA; and Seattle, WA in recognizing “multi-partner” relationships. While not yet according poly unions all the same rights and privileges accorded true marriages, just wait. It takes time for radical ideas to ooze from the swampy fringes of society into the mainstream. Just remember how long it took homosexuals to destroy marriage in law. And remember how long it took feticide fanatics to achieve de facto legalization of infanticide. Incrementalism is the favored tactic of deceivers.
Another tactic employed to move society from marriage sanity to poly perversity is to worm new terms into “anti-discrimination” policies and laws. Like parasites, leftists glom onto existing laws, abusing good intentions for their own pernicious repurposing projects.
According to the New York Post, “officials have already approved a new anti-discrimination ordinance adding ‘family or relationship structure’ as a protected class.” West Hollywood sexually non-monogamous libertines passed an ordinance that allows them to register their perverse unions as a kind of marriage-lite placeholder until leftists finish the work of legalizing plural marriage.
One of the chief promoters of the West Hollywood ordinance is bisexual attorney Christina Fialho who founded an organization, “that creates film, television, and media narratives that reshape cultural norms and drive policy change to advance health equity, economic opportunity, and civil rights for bi+ people and non-nuclear families.”
Fiahlo has proclaimed that “This law is just the beginning.”
According to Barnes and Thornburg, one of the largest law firms in the United States,
More laws are likely on the way, with similar proposals pending in several other jurisdictions. A comparable bill is before the New York City Council. Beaverton, Oregon, is expected to adopt an ordinance shortly, and Oregon lawmakers may take up a statewide measure in 2027. Advocates have also raised statewide legislation in Massachusetts and New York.
“Anti-discrimination” language, policies, and laws intended to prevent discrimination based on skin color are now being used as oppressive tools to prevent citizens from acting in accordance with essential ontological and moral beliefs about biological sex, deviant erotic proclivities, and marriage.
There is an inescapable logic to the ideological madness of leftists on marriage—a logic that far too many Republicans and Independents continue to ignore. Once leftists redefined marriage by severing it from biological sex and reproduction, then logically, there remained no way to prohibit plural unions. But the logic doesn’t stop there.
If, as leftists claimed as they jackbooted their way through culture, marriage has no intrinsic connection to biological sex, reproductive potential, or the inherent rights and needs of children, then there is no rational reason to conceive of marriage as constituted by romantic/erotic love. Marriage can be a union constituted by philéo love (brotherly love, friendship) or storge love (familial affection).
Why should nine pals who love each other—non-romantically/non-erotically—be prohibited from marrying? Why should an aunt and her niece or a coach and his fave player who love each other non-sexually be prohibited from marrying.
The government’s involvement in marriage has never had anything to do with love. That’s why arranged marriages have never been prohibited.
Severing marriage from both biological sex and reproductive potential renders marriage irrelevant as a public institution. The most salient aspects of marriage as an institution sanctioned by the government are not subjective feelings of affection and sexual attraction. The government has no vested interest in the private subjective feelings of marriage partners.
The government has a vested interest in the public good. What serves the public good is the welfare of future generations. And what best serves future generations is providing for the needs and protecting the rights of children, which includes their right to be raised by a mother and father, preferably their own biological parents.
If marriage were solely a private institution concerned only with emotional attachments and erotic desire, as homosexuals claim it is, then there would be no reason for the government to be involved. There would be no more justification for government regulation of marriage than there is for government regulation of platonic friendships.
If leftists can jettison the single most enduring and cross-cultural feature of marriage—sexual differentiation—then on what basis can they conceptually retain any other feature, including the notion that marriage is a romantic/erotic union? While eroticism may be important to intimate partners, of what relevance is naturally sterile erotic activity to the government’s interest in marriage?
Marriage has been in tatters since easy-peasy divorce became culturally sanctioned, and now leftists want those tatters torched. Marriage permanence—gone. Marriage sexual differentiation/complementarity—gone. Marriage twoness—going. Leftists just love the smell of napalm all day long.
America cannot be restored to its former glory, to moral sanity, or to a place in which free people can flourish if we don’t get marriage right. Two mothers, two fathers, or five people of assorted sexes cannot raise morally healthy children. They cannot socially construct schools that will properly educate students. Without intact families with one mother and one father who will expect, demand, and shape good schools, we will never have good leaders or laws.