The Other Side of the Rainbow

The advocates of so-called marriage “equality” will tell you that it’s all about love. Gender doesn’t matter, if two people love each other they should be allowed to marry; love is the most important thing. You wouldn’t want to be on the wrong side of history they say; you wouldn’t want to have a part in the discrimination against two loving people whose only obstacle to marrying is the fact that they happen to be of the same gender. This is the 21st century, it’s time to put aside prejudice and move on; cause it’s all about love, and who would want to stand in the way of that?

Well, there are some people who do disagree with marriage “equality” and certain cases, which are more numerous than some may think, show the other side of the rainbow[1]; and it’s not a pot of gold that’s waiting beneath it.


Supporters of same-sex “marriage” argue that redefining marriage won’t affect those who oppose it; but time and time again this has been proven wrong. One might call to mind the baker phenomenon; the numerous Christian bakers who have objected to baking cakes for gay weddings because of their beliefs and have been fined for doing so. Some have had their businesses ruined, and in one case a father of four had to take up work as a garbage collector to support his family because the fines had forced him to close his shop. In many such cases people have even received death threats; if it’s only about love, why all the hate? I’m not at all suggesting that all gay people are going around trying to get Christians and others who disagree with them in trouble, but such occurrences are too many and too frequent to be denied or ignored. In such cases an attitude emerges which will not tolerate the idea of people disagreeing; such cases show that some believe that not only should same-sex “marriage” be legalised, but that all should be made to accept it. It’s ironic if you really think about it. There is so much emphasis and talk in our culture today about being tolerant, but many seem to be only willing to tolerate those who agree with them. Though they are eager to point out any who don’t as hateful, bigoted and yes, intolerant. This should cause one to ask, just what exactly is tolerance? To tolerate someone you must first disagree with them, and then put up with them and respect them even though they disagree. You don’t tolerate a beautiful sunny day; you tolerate the rain.[2]

I recently attended a talk by Dr. Ryan T. Anderson on, The Cost of “Equality”, hosted by the Australian Catholic University. Before addressing the consequences of redefining marriage, which was primarily what the talk was about, he first asked the question, “What sort of relationship is marriage?” Is it a romantic relationship between two consenting adults, in which case gender doesn’t matter; or is it the exclusive union of one man and one woman, committed to each other for life, that any children born of their union will have a mother and a father? For all of human history up until now, marriage was based on the complementary nature of the opposite sexes, who because of their biological differences may become one flesh. This union of man and wife is so great an expression of love that it may become another living person.

Of all human relationships why is the government interested in marriage? If marriage is, as traditionally understood, the exclusive union of one man and one woman, open to the possibility of children then the government should understandably be interested as this relationship involves the raising of the next generation, in fact the very continuation of the human race. The reality is that same-sex unions cannot perform this essential function; they cannot naturally produce children. But they can have kids, some will argue; what about artificial insemination[3] or adoption?

What about the Kids?

Here, says Dr. Anderson, is one of the negative consequences of redefining marriage. If marriage is defined simply as a relationship between consenting adults, regardless of gender, there will no longer be any institution which upholds the right of children to a mother and a father; more specifically, their own biological mother and father. Same-sex “marriage” says that men and women are interchangeable, and that therefore parents are replaceable. Advocates of same-sex “marriage” argue that “children in the care of two parents of the same sex are not disadvantaged by being raised by these parents,” and that, “far from hurting children, marriage equality will actually benefit those children being raised by same-sex couples by removing legal discrimination against their families.”

These claims for the most part seem to be based on numbers and statistics from volunteer studies, but what about the flesh and blood children of such unions? When it came to this point Dr. Anderson turned the mic over to Millie Fontana, a twenty three year old Australian woman who introduced herself as the donor conceived child of lesbian parents. She made clear that she loves all three parents equally and was speaking with their support. Although she was raised an atheist she said she stands with Christians because they seem to be the only ones trying to focus on the children in relation to the marriage “equality” debate. LGBT activists don’t want to hear stories like hers, stories which show the other side of the rainbow. She said that before she could even articulate it she knew that she was missing something, this something she later realised to be her father who she made he parents let her meet at the age of eleven. She wondered where she got her green eyes, her talents; things which neither of her lesbian parents possessed. The LGBT says that children don’t care who their family is. Millie disagreed; she asked what right her two mothers had to decide what parts of her were acceptable for her to know about. What right had they to keep her father from her? She said that one of her mothers asked her what she would think if they [her two mothers] were able to get married. Millie replied that she would not have wanted it. How then she asked would her psychological fatherlessness have been treated if fathers were no longer allowed to be spoken about? If fathers where declared to be unnecessary? She also criticised those who labelled Christian bigots because of their beliefs and those who equate ‘discrimination’ against gays to racism. In response to her emotional and courageous personal testimony she received a standing ovation.

Dr. Anderson also added that same-sex “marriage” creates an institution for missing parents. There are those who argue that same-sex relationships are not really any different to single parent situations where only one gender is present, but as the Australian Catholic Bishops say in their pastoral letter Don’t Mess With Marriage, “there is a big difference…between dealing with the unintended reality of single parenthood and planning from the beginning artificially to create an ‘alternative’ family that deliberately deprives a child of a father or a mother.” After all, no one encourages single parenthood, and it is sadly believed that 40% of Americans are born to single mothers. This is in fact an interesting point in this debate as some believe that the absence of a father – particularly for boys- can in fact be one of the causes of same-sex attraction. The number of couples cohabitating, the number of children born out of wedlock and the fact that an estimated 50% of marriages end in divorce, seem to indicate that many have lost faith in the institution of marriage.

The breakup of marriage was not caused by gays and lesbian, Dr. Anderson pointed out; it began in the 1960’s with the sexual revolution. And while he did not mention it I will turn your attention to Blessed Pope Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical which came about in the think of the revolution, Humane Vitae. Although the title may be translated to “On Human Life”, this encyclical is more widely known as the encyclical on birth control. At the time of its release the expectation was that the Church would approve contraception, and artificial; birth control, for that was the way the culture was moving. So sure were they, that when Humane Vitae was release, and in it the Holy Father declared that artificial birth control could not be allowed he was attacked by the media and certain bishops even encouraged Catholics to reject the Pope’s teaching and go ahead and use contraception.

In the encyclical Pope Paul VI also predicted that if contraception were allowed the road would be opened “up towards conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morals.” (17)

He also said that “it is feared that the man, growing used to the employment of anti-contraceptive practices, may finally lose respect for women and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion.” (17) You don’t need to look far to see how right he was.

With the widespread use of contraception, the sexual act was allowed to become divorced from marriage, and also its truly beautiful life giving purpose to be reduced to a mostly selfish act of pleasure. During the sexual revolution, Dr. Anderson argued, marriage was redefined by the culture; legal same-sex “marriage” is really just the continuation of the revolution. What will the next step be?

If marriage becomes simply a contract between two people who love each other regardless of gender, where will the line be drawn? Why not allow throuples (three men or three women) to marry? Will we next hear of number discrimination?

Freedom of religion

The final consequence Dr. Anderson spoke of – which he classified as the least important behind the effects on marriage and society – was the effects of redefining marriage on religious freedom.

While gay activists (some at least) claim that the redefinition of marriage will not affect religious freedom, countless examples have show that this is not so. In the cases of Christian bakers, photographers, florists and others, it’s not like they were denying to serve the gays at all; only when it came to a wedding cake, wedding flowers, or wedding photos, did they object; things which they could not do without going against their most heartfelt beliefs. It’s not like the adoption agencies which refused to place children with gay couples were trying to prevent them from adopting from pro gay government agencies, they were simply refusing because they believe that a child needs a mother and a father. As a result many were shut down for “discrimination”.  After the Massachusetts Supreme Court legalised it gay “marriage” David and Tanya Parker objected to their son being taught about it in kindergarten and as a result, David was arrested and handcuffed and told that he had no right to pull his son out of the class.[4] Then there is the incident in which Catholic Bishop Julian Porteous[5] sent home with Catholic students copies of the Australian Bishops letter, Don’t Mess With Marriage and was threatened with prosecution for hate speech. All he did was send home Catholic teachings (which are not at all hateful; read the letter for yourself) with Catholic students from Catholic schools…what do they except to be taught in a Catholic school? This happened in a country where same-sex “marriage” is not even legal. What will happen if it is? If the truth that marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman is defined as a lie; won’t it be natural that there will be penalties for those who uphold this “lie”? After all, if marriages between two men or two women are perfectly fine and normal, who do those who oppose them, think they are? Are they not simply close minded bigots stuck in the past? Shouldn’t they be made to see that they are wrong?

The Meaning of Equality

With all this talk about equality we would do well to ask, just what does equality mean? Equality is to treat things that are the same in the same way. Are marriages between one man and one woman, open to children the same as unions between people of the same sex the same? Some will claim that they are, but it should be obvious that they are not. Two men or two women cannot naturally have a child. This is a biological fact. As the Australian Catholic Bishops say, the “appeal to equality and non-discrimination gets things the wrong way around. Justice requires us to treat people fairly and therefore not to make arbitrary, groundless distinctions. We must treat like cases alike and different cases differently. Only women are admitted to women’s hospitals and only children to primary schools. We have programmes targeted at Aborigines, refugees, athletes, those with disabilities or reading difficulties, and so on. Thus privileging or assisting particular people in relevant ways is not arbitrary but an entirely fair response. And if the union of a man and a woman is different from other unions – not the same as other unions – then justice demands that we treat that union accordingly. If marriage is an institution designed to support people of the opposite sex to be faithful to each other and to the children of their union it is not discrimination to reserve it to them.”[6] Instead of a push for marriage “equality” there should be a push to strengthen marriage as traditionally understood.

Men and women are in fact different and to deny it does not change the truth. It is dishonest to treat gay unions in the same way as heterosexual ones. As G. K. Chesterton wrote, “Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”[7]  For as St. Augustine said, “Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it.”

Watch the video of the talk here;


[1] Millie Fontana, The Cost of “Equality”, August 20th 2015

[2] Chris Stefanick, Absolute Relativism

[3] Artificial insemination always destroys more human embryos – human beings – than are used. “Embryos that are not implanted are often frozen for future attempts, or donated for research. In the U.S. alone there are many hundreds of thousands such tiny human persons, consigned to frozen storage like things or set aside for experimentation, radically against their innate dignity.” – Catholic Answers


[5] Australia’s bishops reaffirm marriage – and get reported to government

[6] Don’t Mess With Marriage

[7] Illustrated London News, 4/19/30

Recommended reading;

Gay Marriage – Catholic Answers

Catholics and Gays – Against the Flow

The Struggle for the Soul of Marriage – Against the Flow



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s