The most troubling aspect of re-defining marriage, though, is that it leads us down a road in which the logical consequences demand that we let any relationship be defined into marriage. If two men can commit to a loving relationship and become “married,” then why not two men and one woman?, or just one woman?, or one man and a child?, or three men, two women and, one chimpanzee? There is no reason this cannot happen because if it’s all about who gets to participate, then the static definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman will have been destroyed and replaced with whatever one wants it to mean.In a recent broadcast of his radio program, Greg Koukl referenced a post by Frank Beckwith in which Beckwith makes the very same argument. Beckwith goes further though and suggests action that should be taken to call the bluff of the pro-gay lobby:
Here’s the plan. Have about 50 folks go to San Francisco city hall and request marriage licenses, but not for gay marriages, rather, for other sorts of “unions” that are also forbidden by the state: three bi-sexuals from two genders, two men and a goat (or another non-human companion), one person who wants to marry himself (and have him accuse the mayor of “numberism,” the prejudice that marriage must include more than one person), two married couples who want a temporary “wife swap lease,” a man who wants to add a second wife and a first husband in order to have a “marital ensemble," etc., etc. Let’s see if the mayor will give these people “marriage” licenses. If not, why not? If not, then the jig is up and the mayor actually has to explain the grounds on which he will not give licenses to these folks. But what could those grounds be? That it would break the law? That marriage has a nature, a purpose, that is not the result of social construction or state fiat? If so, then what is it and why?Check Street Theatre in the Bay Area: What Social Conservatives Should Do at Beckwith's blogsite.