“If it is constitutionally irrational to stand by the man-woman definition of marriage, it must be constitutionally irrational to stand by the monogamous definition of marriage…”

The attorneys arguing in support of same-sex marriage could not explain why marriage was still justifiably monogamous, because 

the only argument they could advance was moral tradition. They could not cite moral tradition as the authority for monogamy because they argued that moral tradition was not a rational basis for law when it came to limiting marriage to a man-woman union.

This argument was made in a majority decision in the US Court of Appeals. It has also been made by religious leaders, politicians, and average American citizens.

Notably, it does not equate the practices of polygamy (or any other proposed familial relationship) and homosexuality, as activists like to claim. Rather, it demonstrates a simple reality:

Based on the arguments of those who support same-sex marriage, there is no logical or moral — or apparently constitutional — reason to restrict the expansion of marriage to just homosexuals.

For some reason, some homosexual activists find that observation offensive.

Via Dr. Al Mohler.

ADVERTISEMENT