Meet Steve and Karl, two men who love each other. They’ve been in a committed relationship for twenty years. They also happen to be biologically related: they’re brothers. Growing up, they denied their love for each other, afraid that their family and friends — their entire society — would disapprove of their deep affection for each other. Last year, they stopped pretending. In a courageous act that is also a testimony to the strength of their love for each other, they not only consummated their union, but moved in together as a couple. They came out to their family and friends. The more close-minded friends and relatives rejected them, but, to their surprise, their mother, one of their sisters, and a few of their closest friends accepted them just as they are. And now, encouraged by the liberals’s dictum to “marry who you love,” an injunction the brothers clearly discern applies to them, they’re ready to take the plunge: they want to get married. They want their union legally recognized so that they have all the rights and benefits as other couples.
What justification do we have for denying Karl and Steve the right to marry? Shall we tell them that marriage is only between a man and a woman? In the United States, that’s no longer true. Shall we tell them that incest is forbidden because it leads to genetic complications? That’s not a factor in their case since they’re both male. Shall we tell them that they weren’t born that way? What proof do we have of that? In any case, even if liberals frequently claim that homosexuality is genetic, as of yet no “gay gene” (or group of genes) has been found (much less a complex of bisexual or transgender genes) to prove the contention that homosexuality is hereditary. Therefore, let’s imagine a case where homosexuality proves not to be hereditary. Supporters of same-sex marriage would not say that their argument depends on whether it is, so they can’t use it as an excuse to deny Steve and Karl. Shall we tell Steve and Karl that incestuous relationships are so rare they simply don’t count under the law? Compared to heterosexuals, homosexuals are also relatively rare.
Exasperated, shall we blurt out that incest is simply immoral? The liberals have an answer for that too: Who’s to say what is moral? Without severe pain of contradiction, liberals can’t deny Steve and Karl the right to marry. Under the liberal argument, it becomes a wholly arbitrary matter where we draw the line. They have made it so that there’s no compelling reason to deny two brothers the right to marry. When even the general possibility of procreation has been taken out of the picture as part of the definition of marriage, there’s no objective reason why we should deny two brothers this right. Any liberal that now wants to turn around and argue that two brothers shouldn’t be allowed to marry for moral or any other reason is only falling into hypocrisy. Allowing Steve and Karl the right to marry is not only allowed by the liberal argument, it demands it.
Whether or not they want to own up to it, liberals have taken away all the arguments against marriage not just between brother and brother, but between sister and sister, mother and daughter, father and son (and even between close relatives of the opposite sex if artificial means are employed to prevent reproduction). Liberals will accuse me of making the slippery slope argument. I would simply observe that gay marriage is the slippery slope in progress right before our eyes. If, thirty or forty years ago, you had told a liberal that his or her ideas would lead to homosexuals marrying, chances are he or she would have accused you of making the slippery slope argument. But here we are in 2015, and homosexuals are getting married.
If we deny two brothers the right to marry, are we violating their constitutional rights? Of course not. Equality might be an ideal, even a very important ideal, but that doesn’t make it an absolute one. Equality exists alongside other ideals, and these ideals have to be counterbalanced. The real question is how far are we willing to take equality, how far is too far, to what extent are we, as a culture and as a society, willing to trample on other ideals, including moral ones?
Liberals have opened Pandora’s box. There is no telling what else will fly out of there. Maybe it will be marriage equality for bisexuals who claim that the current configuration of marriage as between two people forces them to get divorced in order to be who they are, to express and exercise their bisexuality (in which case, polygamy will be allowed). Will it be man-boy love? Liberals may bristle at the thought that we are assigning these motives to them. But remember: the liberal philosophy is “get with the times.” Times change. Mores change. You can be sure that if the times changed and man-boy love became culturally acceptable, liberals would be telling us not to remain mired in the past but to get with the times.