Gay Marriage is Robbery – and the Reason Why May Surprise You

Written by Jennifer Thieme on October 24, 2012

I believe that if the United States redefines marriage to accommodate gay couples for the entire country, we will look back after some time has passed and realize it was a terrible mistake – we’ll realize we were robbed.

This is because accommodating gay couples into the institution of marriage requires removing gender references such as “mother” and “father” from the law. I’ve given examples of how this works here.

Removing gendered words means we’ll be removing the legal recognition of the natural bond between mothers and fathers and their children from the law. This replaces the natural bond in the law with an artificial, state defined bond. It’s the same bond given to adoptive children with their adoptive parents. It’s fine for adoption, because it’s supposed to help children in extraordinary circumstances get the parents they need, but for natural parents it’s robbery.

We’ll realize that removing gendered words was a huge transfer of power from families to the government, and that the government abused that power, especially among the most vulnerable members of society – the young and the poor, just like we see now with no fault divorce, artificial reproductive technology, and the tacit government encouragement of multi-partner fertility and out of wedlock childbearing among the poor. The poor already have so little … and now we’ll be taking one of the few things they have – the recognition of the natural bond with their own children within the legal code.

Not only that, but after time has passed we will have mountains of social science data to show how changing our legal code to not recognize these natural bonds contributed to weakening the family structure on a scale we had not seen before.

We already know that weakening the family structure is a bad idea. Many believe that accommodating gay couples into the institution of marriage will strengthen the institution of marriage. Have you ever noticed that they have not articulated precisely how the marital structure will be strengthened? These same people could not identify the fundamental components of the marital structure if their lives depended on it. We’re told that it just somehow will happen … by magic, perhaps? By wishful thinking? I suppose the progressive intellectuals might elaborate by saying something really profound, like this: It’s all about love! People’s love for one another is the only defining feature of marriage!

No, love is not one of the defining features of marriage as a legal public policy. For those of us who are natural law/free market people, we always figured love would find its own way into relationships, that it didn’t need to be regulated or codified.

And as far as changing gendered words for genderless words in the law? You’re supposed to ignore this. You’re supposed to believe that it doesn’t matter. “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!” comes to mind when I think of their response to removing “mother” and “father” from the law.

The left and some on the right are robbing us and they don’t even have to get violent to do it. Many are bowing to the new genderless order or remaining silent about it with the hope they won’t be tarnished by it. Some hope that nothing really that bad will happen, or they hope that their friends will still like them if they remain neutral. Perhaps they hope their friends or adversaries won’t call them names like “bigot” or “hater.” If you’re neutral on this issue, do you realize the only weapon the other side has is name calling? That’s the biggest gun they have, and it’s nothing more than a water gun. OK so you might get a little damp protecting yourself from being robbed. Is that so bad, to protect the recognition of the natural bonds of mother and father for yourself, for your children, for your grandchildren, you nieces, nephews, cousins?

Which path will we choose? Will we choose the comfortable and easy path of genderless marriage leading to the robbery of power from families, or will we choose the natural law path that acknowledges that moms are moms and dads are dads and that nothing should come between this?

Strap in, because we’re about to find out.

Jennifer Thieme is the Director of Finance & Advancement for the Ruth Institute, a project of the National Organization for Marriage Education Fund. The Ruth Institute educates people as to why marriage must be defined as between one man, one woman, for life, for a truly free society to survive. Stay updated on the marriage issue by subscribing to the Ruth Institute newsletter, and instantly receive a free download, “Improve Your Marriage, Even If Your Spouse Doesn’t Change a Bit!” Signup here: