The Redefinition of Marriage is Not About Marriage


As the move to redefine marriage in the United States gains steam through the agency of unelected activist courts, it should be clear that the true intent of this radical movement is to wage war against religion and, of course, against the First Amendment.

It is vital to remember that the Left uses stealth and lies to achieve its ends.

Those who advocate the murder of infants in the womb camouflage their support of industrial-scale murder with the label “women’s health.” But since half the infants aborted are female, the very notion of terminating pregnancies for the sake of women’s health becomes a study in Orwellian language and logic.

The same goes for the redefinition of marriage.

Those who support this movement present two basic arguments:

1. If two people love one another, they should have the right to marry.

2. How does the marriage of two gay people hurt you?

Answer to argument #1: If three (or four, or five — you pick the number) people love each other, they should have the right to marry, right? After all, polygamy is well-established in human history and continues to thrive in scores of Arab Muslim lands. What about siblings who wish to marry because they love one another? The argument for love as the final arbiter of marriage is a slippery slope toward utter chaos.

Answer to argument #2: Gay marriage does not hurt me personally. But the redefinition of marriage by the federal government leads to a variety of consequences that will damage and remake society in ways that are unimaginable.

For example, the American Muslim community’s near-total silence about the redefinition of marriage is a strategic silenceMuslims understand all too well that once gay marriage becomes the law of the land, the door to polygamy will be open. There is no way liberal courts are going to, ahem, “discriminate” against Muslims. Once Muslim polygamy spreads, the next step is the imposition of sharia. It’s already happening in Western Europe.

But as we said in our opening, the long game of the movement to redefine marriage is much bigger than normalizing gay marriage. Its true intent is to normalize sexual deviance, destroy the nuclear family, and promote LGBT as the new normal. To accomplish this, the movement works to demonize normative religion.

Christian ministers from Idaho refused to perform a gay wedding ceremony. They are now threatened with jail time and huge fines.

The Stalinist mayor of Houston, Texas demands to inspect Christian ministers’ sermons for signs of sentiments against gay marriage.

Christian bakers from Colorado refuse to bake cakes for a gay wedding. Christian photographers refuse to lens a gay wedding.

All are threatened with jail time and financial ruin.

It is telling that gay activists have not attempted this tactic with a pious Muslim baker, photographer, or imam. Because as we all know the earth is densely landscaped with gay friendly mosques.

As for Jews well, scores of progressive rabbis are just itching to perform same-sex weddings. They believe in the Democrat party, not in the Torah.

The test will come — and it will happen — when a gay couple approaches an Orthodox rabbi and asks him to perform their wedding ceremony. When he declines, he will be sued for discrimination, and accused of being the postmodern Bull Connor.

The progressive radicals who agitate for the redefinition of marriage are playing the long game in a long war. They will sneak queer studies into elementary schools, do away with separate bathrooms for boys and girls, normalize the notion of gender neutrality, and demonize normative religious traditions. All but Muslim ones, that is… because not even progressives relish the prospect of having their heads sawn off in the name of political correctness.

This entry was posted in Abortion, Gay Marriage and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.


  1. kishke
    Posted October 26, 2014 at 1:38 pm | Permalink

    A relevant post:

    “Marginalization Leading to Persecution”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. kohana
    Posted October 24, 2014 at 9:29 am | Permalink

    Robert, are you still paying attention to the conversation on It’s up to 111 comments now and beginning to get amusing.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Robert J. Avrech
      Posted October 24, 2014 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

      I did follow. Impressive intellects at work there. Thanks so much.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • kohana
        Posted October 25, 2014 at 10:40 pm | Permalink

        At last count 201, pretty good turnout, right? Why don’t you join us. Cost is about $4 or so a month. You need “skin” in the game to post. It a conservative chat room, with a code of conduct, and you probably already know some of the members, being in the same business as yourself. There is at least 4 maybe more Orthodox Jews that post frequently. Two I remember off hand iWe, and Son of Spengler. There are a number of members in Israel, and actually all over the world. The podcast are supposed to be very good, but my hearing prevents me from participating. Would love to have more of your wonderful writings get a wider audience.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. pkoning
    Posted October 23, 2014 at 9:54 am | Permalink

    Two comments.
    While it is true that in many states same sex marriage has come from activist courts, that isn’t true everywhere. In New Hampshire it came about the proper way (through the legislature).
    The real problem is that two things that should be separate are mixed together. One is marriage, which is a religious act. The other is the government’s different treatment of married people compared to unmarried ones. The religious act is clearly none of the government’s business, the first amendment makes that perfectly clear. On the other hand, unequal treatment under the law is also unconstitutional. So if two people have committed to each other as a couple, should they get the different treatment that the law gives to married couples? If not, why not? What about equal treatment?
    There is a solution to this: separation of church and state. Because marriage is a religious act, it must be only that. If there is no different treatment of married and unmarried people, there cannot be any need or justification for the government to claim authority to define what marriage is.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • kgbudge
      Posted October 23, 2014 at 10:15 am | Permalink

      Historically, the state took an interest in marriage because marriage was closely associated with the welfare of children. I’m not sure that has really changed.

      In a way, this battle was lost when adoption became a right of unmarried persons, then of gay couples. Some slopes really are slippery.

      It may be that the best we can hope for is a distinction between religious marriage and civil union. But let’s understand that this is a case of negotiating for more honorable surrender terms, not of seeking any kind of victory.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • pkoning
        Posted October 24, 2014 at 7:48 am | Permalink

        I’m not convinced that the historic origin of state involvement is what you suggest. Originally, state and church were one and the same. In the USA the two were split apart, rather imperfectly at first. It seems likely that government regulation of marriage is a remnant of the old system, and that the “welfare of children” is a modern liberal attempt to justify that regulation on a secular basis.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • kgbudge
          Posted October 24, 2014 at 3:25 pm | Permalink

          The interest taken by church/state in marriage, as an institution for ensuring the welfare of children, goes back to the beginnings of recorded history. It’s no modern liberal invention — indeed, current events suggest that liberals would be happy to get rid of marriage, and let the state do most of the raising of children itself.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Robert J. Avrech
      Posted October 23, 2014 at 2:56 pm | Permalink

      Two-thirds of the states that have authorized same sex marriage were ordered by the courts.

      Governmental sponsorship of marriage is a significant expansion of government which leads inevitably to Progressive thought police seeking to persecute and prosecute those who disagree. Which is to say, those who believe in orthodox religions and God. Progressives seek to replace God and religion with an endlessly expanding government led by charismatic demagogues. Think Obama, Fidel, Stalin, etc.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • kishke
      Posted October 23, 2014 at 7:34 pm | Permalink

      On the other hand, unequal treatment under the law is also unconstitutional.

      There is no inequality under the law in the present system. All citizens, regardless of sexual orientation, are free to enter into marriage with persons of the opposite gender. Everyone is equal in that regard.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. kohana
    Posted October 22, 2014 at 1:20 pm | Permalink

    Do you really think there would be a problem with an Orthodox Rabbi? They already don’t marry anyone unless they are also Orthodox Jews.

    We have a new Rabbi in NW Montana, Francine Roston who was last a Rabbi of Congregation Beth El in South Orange, NJ a Conservative synagogue.
    “Rabbi Francine Roston of Congregation Beth El in South Orange performed the Conservative synagogue’s first-ever commitment ceremony for a same-sex couple in 2006, six months after the movement’s law committee accepted an opinion allowing rabbis to perform same-sex ceremonies.
    She has always included kiddushin. “Kiddushin sanctifies the relationship. Now, it happens to have the legal status of marriage,” she said.
    Roston celebrated with couples from Beth El who were married on Oct. 22 in a shared ceremony presided over by Maplewood Mayor Vic DeLuca. And on Nov. 2, her synagogue celebrated the ruling with a “Rainbow Shabbat” attended by Garden State Equality’s executive director, Troy Stevenson, who also addressed the congregation briefly. All the couples who had been married in the previous two weeks received aliyot. At the end of the service, they gathered under a huppa to receive a special blessing, after which rainbow confetti rained down on them. The kiddush included a rainbow-frosted wedding cake donated by Cait and Abby’s bakery.”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Robert J. Avrech
      Posted October 22, 2014 at 4:27 pm | Permalink

      The problem would be when the Orthodox rabbi is sued because he refuses to perform a same sex marriage. It will happen. It’s only a question of when.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • Barry
        Posted October 22, 2014 at 4:33 pm | Permalink

        Hope it happens soon. Let’s see the pot stirred further. In Canada today, for the second time this week, An Islamic convert whose passport had been seized, both incidents, killed a soldier. I hate these stupid bastards.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • Barry
          Posted October 24, 2014 at 7:06 pm | Permalink

          Correction — Apparently the second shooter was not under surveillance.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. kohana
    Posted October 22, 2014 at 12:28 pm | Permalink

    I would like to re-post your article on my FB page. Also on a conservative web site where there is a current discussion going on regarding SSM.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Robert J. Avrech
      Posted October 22, 2014 at 12:29 pm | Permalink

      Thanks so much for asking. It would be an honor to be reposted on your FB page and

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • kohana
        Posted October 23, 2014 at 8:31 am | Permalink

        You might enjoy the conversation Robert, it has been moved from behind the pay wall to the main page.

        You can’t answer if you are not a member, but if I’ve made mistakes in my responses, let me know and I will correct them.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • Robert J. Avrech
          Posted October 23, 2014 at 2:59 pm | Permalink

          Interesting comments. Thanks so much. One correction: screenwriter is one word:-)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • kohana
            Posted October 23, 2014 at 5:15 pm | Permalink

            Don’t know if I ever mentioned, I’m hearing impaired and have a tendency to form words in groups. I’ll try to fix it, but sometimes with ricochet it’s hard to do. It sure has taken a turn on it’s own, hasn’t it? Now they are arguing legal positions. I’ve long since gotten out of the debate. It’s a good piece, and making it to the main page is a plus for you. I forgot to put your url up on this page so will try to correct that as well.

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

            • kohana
              Posted October 23, 2014 at 5:43 pm | Permalink

              Fixed it and added your URL.

              Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

            • Robert J. Avrech
              Posted October 24, 2014 at 3:09 pm | Permalink

              Your hearing impairment is not noticeable at all. I know lots of people who spell screenwriter as two words. It’s a common mistake. In any case, thanks again for bringing my blog to Ricochet — which is an impressive forum.

              Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting