It’s fitting to mark the anniversary of the National survey on Same-Sex Marriage, with this important Heritage foundation panel discussion held in the United States in 2017. The panel contributors include Ryan Bomberger, who I’ve had a growing admiration for his work through the Radiance Foundation.
The group discusses how anti-discrimination laws are being used as a sword, rather than a shield, in order to impose radical Leftist ideological agendas, and punish those who stand opposed to them.
The panel also addresses the false equivalency that is made between the abhorrent Jim Crow laws, and someone declining to serve/make/create based on a conscientious objection to gay marriage. This is relevant to our post-redefinition of marriage era, where freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and freedom of association are being challenged.
I’m in agreement with the panelists.
I especially liked the reasons for a defence of traditional marriage, and the response to government involvement given by Heritage Foundation’s William E. Simon senior research fellow, Ryan T. Anderson, at the close of the discussion [see 46:25 – 47:18].
According to Dr Anderson: “Man-made law should recognise the natural law, which looks to human nature and what marriage is. That marriage is based on three secular truths.
“First, anthropological truth, that man and woman are distinct and complimentary. Second, the biological fact that reproduction requires a man and a woman; and finally a social reality that children deserve a mum and a dad.
“You put those three pieces together and you going to have a basic understanding of what marriage is and our man-made laws should reflect that.
“Apart from that it’s not clear to me why the government is consenting ratification of romance business. Once we get away from the man-woman, husband and wife, mother/father understanding of what marriage is, I don’t see what role the state has in regulating consenting adults sexual or romantic relationships.”
During the plebiscite, I contributed five articles to the Same-sex marriage debate in Australia.
While it’s still legal to disagree, and show a loving opposition to SSM, they can all currently be found here:
- Nein: Why I will be voting “No” To Same-Sex Marriage
- Still Nein: A Response To Janet Albrecthsen’s Libertarian Conservative “Yes” To SSM
- Biology Is Not a Social Construct: Why “p” Cannot Equal “q” Without Perpetual Revolution
- A “No” To SSM, is a “Yes” to Freedom, Not a Denial of it
- Voting “No” To Same-Sex Marriage Was Never About Imposing “Christian Law”
It’s still okay to vote “no”.
Share your thoughts