How We Got Here

Well, the full reason is centuries old, but part of the reason is today’s change in our marriage laws. Two eminently qualified commentators laid this out more than 3 years ago.

They are:

Ryan T. Anderson , the William E. Simon senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, and the founder and editor of Public Discourse, the online journal of the Witherspoon Institute. B.A Princeton, PhD Notre Dame.

Robert P. George, the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University.

Their 2020 opinion piece in USA Today was prescient.

In that article, Anderson and George presented an argument against the redefinition of marriage, particularly in relation to same-sex marriage and the implications it would have on societal norms of monogamy, exclusivity, and permanence.

They argued that the legal recognition of same-sex marriage has led to a shift in societal understanding of marriage. Marriage is now seen as a flexible institution based on consenting adult relationships, rather than a union between a man and a woman for the purpose of childbearing and rearing.

This shift undermines the belief that children deserve a mother and a father.

In relation to monogamy, the authors questioned why marriage should be limited to two people if it is simply about romantic connection. Because there is nothing inherently special about the number two, the logic of ‘romantic connection’ inexorably leads to the mainstreaming of non-traditional relationships.

Specifically, they mentioned the emergence and acceptance of “throuples,” a term used to describe a three-person romantic relationship. They also mentioned the rise of “ethical nonmonogamy,” a term used to describe relationships where all parties consent to their partners having other romantic and sexual relationships.

On the topic of exclusivity, Anderson and George argued that if marriage is not a union uniting a man and a woman as one flesh, there is no reason it should involve or imply sexual exclusivity. They discussed the acceptance of “open relationships,” where partners are not exclusive and can have other relationships outside of their primary one.

Regarding permanence, they questioned why marriage should be pledged to permanence if it is not a comprehensive union inherently ordered to childbearing and rearing.

This erosion of the norms of monogamy, exclusivity, and permanence has had profound consequences on society, particularly for children, and it is a result of the cultural breakdown of marriage.

Also they argued that the redefinition of marriage has led to questioning the relevance of gender in marriage, contributing to the rise of discussions around transgender and nonbinary identities. For if gender doesn’t matter in marriage, it might not matter at all, leading to the idea of gender as a fluid concept existing along a spectrum of nonbinary options.

In a final flourish they say the redefinition of marriage was influenced by body-self dualism, the idea that we are essentially nonphysical entities inhabiting physical bodies. So these bodies are not who we REALLY are. This belief led to the idea that the physical aspects of sexual acts did not matter, and that what mattered was emotional union and the use of bodies to induce desirable sensations and feelings. This, they argue, contributed to the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex relationships.

In their view, these changes are not grassroots movements but are driven by those wielding political, economic, and cultural power to advance a sexual-liberationist ideology. These changes have been top-down, driven by ideologically friendly courts, federal agencies, and big corporations.

Finally, let me add something about legal arrangements for my gay and lesbian friends. Legal arrangements regarding inheritance rights, visitation rights, etc., for non-heterosexual relationships are supported by the vast majority of Americans.

There was no need to redefine marriage.

But here we are.


The law shapes culture, culture shapes beliefs, and beliefs shape action.

Media Distorts Pro-Life Position

Here is an extended interview of prominent Pro-Life activists one year after Dobbs.

If you don’t have the time for the whole discussion (and really folks, this is so important, that a tweet or Facebook post simply will not cover all the bases) at least listen to the first 10 minutes.

In the first 10 minutes of the video, they discuss the media’s portrayal of pro-life laws and how they believe this portrayal is misleading. For example, the media often presents pro-life laws as a threat to the health of women, suggesting that these laws prevent women from receiving necessary medical care.

This is a blatant distortion that the media perpetuates.

These activists explain that every pro-life law currently in existence, and every pro-life law being considered, includes clear language stating that if a woman has a health complication during pregnancy, she can receive necessary medical care, even if it inadvertently harms or even results in the death of the unborn child.

They emphasize that this is not considered an abortion, as the primary intent of the procedure is not to end the pregnancy by killing the unborn child, but to preserve the health of the woman.

The confusion or misunderstanding arises from the fact that for the past 50 years, abortion has been referred to as a healthcare procedure. This has led to the conceptualization of pregnancy as a disease and abortion as the treatment. In this framework it’s easy for people to believe that pro-life laws are dangerous for women’s health.

Since there is no medical situation where it is necessary to directly kill the unborn child in order to preserve the health of the woman; the media’s portrayal of pro-life laws as a threat to women’s health is a misrepresentation of the facts and a distortion of the pro-life position.

Well, there is so much more to learn in this video. For example, these Pro-Life Activists also touched on the issue of chemical abortions, which now account for over 50% of all abortions in the U.S. They expressed concern about the lack of discussion around this method of abortion, arguing that the media often glosses over the potential risks and complications associated with it.

It is a stark reminder of the importance of Truth in our society. So get informed. Even if you don’t agree with everything said, it will be a valuable effort.

Companion Posts


First, Do No Harm!