The debate over whether or not those practicing homosexuality should be eligible to obtain the legal status of "married" for their same-sex relationships is persistently mischaracterized by activists on both sides as an attempt to redefine marriage. For those opposing such a move, this is most likely an error of ignorance, while for those favoring, it likely is an intentional tactic of misdirection. To be clear, in order to "redefine" anything, there must be an alternative definition being advocated. To this point, no such proposed substitute has emerged.
In truth then, what is being pursued is not any redefinition of marriage, but rather the "undefinition" of it -- an attempt to obliterate any fundamental parameters for what is to be perceived as moral and immoral sexual partnerships. To anyone paying attention over the last several decades, this effort should come as no surprise.
The debate over homosexuality in our culture, after all, is nothing more than the current manifestation of a much larger crusade for sexual anarchy that has been raging since Alfred Kinsey's fraudulent sex studies of the 1950s. Engaging in nothing short of institutional pedophilia and sexual abuse of children as young as Kindergarten, Kinsey's "research" contended that average Americans commonly were engaging in all sorts of sexual activity. He and his acolytes urged the culture to act on his revelations by shedding their fears and shames about such behavior and embracing all forms of sexual activity as acceptable expression.
The Kinsey cause morphed into the free love movement of the 1960s with its focus on breaking down societal barriers against almost any sexual expression. And ever since, we have experienced a relentless campaign from these forces of sexual anarchy to normalize previously forbidden recreational sex. When Kinsey started the fire, most resisted the idea that sex should be entertainment, until pop culture normalized it. Even then, most resisted the idea that divorce should be easily attainable, until pop culture normalized it. Even then, most resisted the idea that promiscuity should be celebrated, until pop culture normalized it. Even then, most resisted the idea that homosexuality and cross-dressing should be accepted, and now pop culture is normalizing it.
If my assessment is accurate, we should be seeing the next stage in the crusade for sexual anarchy beginning to take shape. And right on cue, a news story emerges from the Salt Lake Tribune to validate as much.
As columnist Lindsay Whitehurst explains, the nearly 38,000 polygamists in Utah are closely following a case in Canada where a court is now weighing a decision that could upend the country's ban on polygamy. What is astounding about the story is how frighteningly similar the polygamists' arguments are to those we are currently hearing from the homosexual and transgendered crowd in America.
Calling the proceedings "historic," polygamy advocate Marlyne Hammon proclaimed, "If Canada were to drop that law, it would send quite an important message out to the world. They can see [polygamy] is not what everyone says. It's about people." Hammon added that the decriminalization of plural marriage in Canada would be a huge motivation to those fighting for its legalization in America. "We've established ourselves in our homes," she said. "We want to continue fighting for our civil rights."
Utah's Attorney General's office spokesman Paul Murphy has said of the case, "I think it will inform us. Canada is tackling the same issues we have, in that we have this law but for the most part it hasn't been enforced by any law enforcement agency."
Notice the similarity in language and sentiment being utilized: civil rights, anti-discrimination, self-fulfillment, personal happiness, don't judge, constitutional rights, personal expression. The very catch phrases currently employed by the sexual anarchists to achieve the acceptance of homosexual behavior are already being used to advocate for the next rung in their ladder. It should come as no surprise then that Tom Hanks, a vocal proponent of gay marriage, is currently the executive producer for the HBO series "Big Love," portraying (and normalizing) a fictional polygamous family in Utah.
Once the trail has been forged by homosexuality activists, polygamy is nothing but the next logical step. Paul McCormack, a law professor at the University of Utah, confirms that if the Supreme Court takes up the question of same-sex marriage, it will open the door to other forms of personal sexual preference. "That would resuscitate the interest in polygamy," he stated.
In light of all this, I simply ask those who support the legalization of "gay marriage" how they plan to deny marriage rights to those who advocate for polygamy? This has now gone beyond a "slippery slope" hypothetical question and has entered the realm of reality. The question deserves an answer, and any sane culture would demand one before proceeding further down the Kinsey path.
If we remove the current moral guideposts defining marriage as the God-intended union of a man and woman, declaring them to be a violation of the civil rights of those who want to engage in homosexuality, how do we reposition those posts to reject the civil rights claims of polygamists?
If we accept the arguments espoused by pop culture homosexual activists like Ellen DeGeneres who plead, "People are gonna be who they're gonna be, and we need to learn to love them for who they are and let them love who they want to love," how do we rebuff polygamy activists like Marlyne Hammon who say the same?
The answer is we don't. That is the consequence of "undefining" marriage -- it becomes a meaningless term, once for all vanquished by the forces of sexual anarchy. This necessarily opens the floodgates to the legalization of every form of sexual activity, from polygamy to incest to bestiality. Before we uproot our culture's moral barriers, we might want to pause long enough to consider what awaits us on the other side.