The Christian Broadcasting Network

Browse Videos

Share Email

Crossroads: The Consequences of Redefining Marriage

The U.S. is at a crossroads as forces work to change the face of traditional marriage. But a new generation is emerging to defend America's families. Read Transcript


Gordon: AMERICA MAY BE

ON THE BRINK OF REDEFINING

ONE OF ITS MOST FUNDAMENTAL

INSTITUTIONS, MARRIAGE.

BUT EVEN AS SOME ACTIVISTS

TRY TO CHANGE IT, A NEW

GENERATION IS STANDING UP TO

DEFEND TRADITIONAL

MARRIAGE.

HEATHER CELLS HAS THAT

STORY.

Reporter: SUPPORTERS OF

GAY MARRIAGE HAVE REACHED A

MAJOR GOAL, TWO CASES BEFORE

THE SUPREME COURT.

THAT PLATFORM AND RECENT

WINS ON THE STATE LEVEL

PROVIDE NEW MOMENTUM FOR

THEIR CAUSE, BUT A YOUNGER

GENERATION IS EMERGING TO

DEFEND TRADITIONAL

MARRIAGE.

RYAN ANDERSON IS MAKING THE

CASE AT THE INFLUENTIAL

HERITAGE FOUNDATION, WHERE

HE ARGUES THAT REDEFINING

MARRIAGE MAKES IT MORE ABOUT

ADULT DESIRES THAN

CHILDREN'S NEEDS.

HE RECENTLY DEFENDED HIS

VIEWS ON CNN.

IF YOU REALLY, REALLY

UNDERSTOOD WHY THE

GOVERNMENT DOES NEED TO GET

INVOLVED, WHY IT DOES NEED

TO BE LEGAL ON A FEDERAL

LEVEL, IF YOU REALLY

UNDERSTOOD THAT, THERE IS NO

WAY YOU WOULD SIT THERE AND

SAY WHAT YOU ARE SAYING

RIGHT NOW.

WHY DO YOU ASSUME THAT

I'M IGNORANT.

BECAUSE YOU SAID --

I DON'T ASSUME ANYTHING

BADLY ABOUT YOU.

I THINK WE DISAGREE.

PRESIDENT OBAMA HIMSELF HAS

SAID THERE ARE PEOPLE OF

GOODWILL AND SOUND MIND ON

BOTH SIDES OF THIS ISSUE.

I AGREE WITH THE PRESIDENT.

Gordon: WELL, RYAN

JOINS US NOW TO TALK ABOUT

THE DEBATE OVER REDEFINING

MARRIAGE.

THAT WAS AN INTERESTING

EXCHANGE.

AND SUZIE WAS REALLY COMING

AFTER YOU.

SURE.

Gordon: WHY THE -- YOU

CAN'T HELP BUT WATCH THAT

PIECE AND SEE HOSTILITY

THERE IN TRYING TO DEMEAN

THE OPINION THAT YOU YOU

HOLD ABOUT MARRIAGE.

WHY IS THAT?

IT'S A GREAT QUESTION.

AND I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE

VIEW IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR OF

TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE,

MARRIAGE BETWEEN A MAN AND A

WOMAN, IT MUST MEAN YOU'RE

ANTI-GAY OR SOMEHOW YOU'RE

AGAINST SOMETHING ELSE.

AND EVEN THE FIRST QUESTION

THAT PIERC PEERS MORGAN WAS

WHY I'M AGAINST GAY

MARRIAGE.

BUT THERE IS A TYPE OF

RELATIONSHIP TO BE MOTHER

AND FATHER TO THE KIDS THEY

CREATE.

THERE IS SOMETHING UNIQUE

AND ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT

ABOUT THAT TYPE OF

RELATIONSHIP, AND I THINK

PARTLY IT IS THAT DURING THE

PAST 40 YEARS,

HETEROSEXUALS, ACTING BADLY,

HAVE MADE A MESS OF MARRIAGE

IN AMERICA.

WHEN YOU SEE HOW MARRIAGE IS

FALLING APART, YOU SAY, WHY

CAN'T WE DO ONE STEP FURTHER

ON DISSOLVING MARRIAGE.

PRE-MARITAL SEX, DIVORCE --

START THE LIST, AND THERE

ARE SO MANY THINGS THAT

HETEROSEXUALS HAVE DONE TO

DAMAGE THE MARRIAGE

TRADITION.

AND PARTICULARLY FOR THE

WELL-BEING OF CHILDREN, FOR

OUR WELFARE STATE, FOR ALL

SORTS OF THINGS, THAT HAVE

BEEN NEGATIVELY IMPACTED BY

THE COLLAPSE OF MARRIAGE.

Gordon: WHY DON'T WE

LEARN THE LESSONS FROM

HISTORY?

YOU GO BACK IN HISTORY, AND

YOU LOOK AT GREEK CULTURE.

GREEK CULTURE WASN'T AN

ANTI-GAY CULTURE.

AND YET IN PLATO'S SIM

SYMPOSIUM.

HE SAYS GAYS DON'T MARRY

BECAUSE THAT'S NOT A

FAMILY.

I'M PARAPHRASING, BUT HE

SAYS GAYS DON'T MARRIAGE.

THEY DON'T DO THAT.

SO WHY HAVE WE SORT OF

ABANDONED THAT AS A -- I

GUESS A POINT IN OUR

ARGUMENT THAT TRADITIONAL

FAMILY AND FAMILY UNITS ARE

THE GROUND WORK OF ANY

SOCIETY.

WE SIT CITE THAT IN OUR

BOOK.

WE POINT OUT THAT PLATO AND

ARSTOTTEL, AND EASTERN

THINKERS, THEY DISAGREED

ABOUT A LOT, BUT THEY ALL

AGREED THAT MARRIAGE WAS A

MALE-FEMALE RELATIONSHIP,

BECAUSE THE UNION OF A MAN

AND WOMAN CAN PRODUCE A

CHILD, AND A CHILD NEEDS A

MOTHER AND A FATHER.

THEY AGREED THAT WHAT

MARRIAGE IS ABOUT UNITING A

MAN AND A WOMAN, A HUSBAND

AND A WIFE, A MOTHER AND A

FATHER.

Gordon: THE SUPREME

COURT HAS TAKEN THIS ISSUE

UP.

DO YOU HAVE A PREDICTION OF

HOW THEY'RE GOING TO RULE.

A FOOL PREDICTS WHAT THE

STREARMSUPREME COURT.

BUT THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD

UPHOLD PROP 8 AND THE

DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT.

MARRIAGE LAWS THAT REFLECT

THE TRUTH OF WHAT MARRIAGE

IS ARE WHOLLY

CONSTITUTIONAL.

AND CITIZENS HAVE THE

AUTHORITY TO VOTE ABOUT WHAT

MARRIAGE IS.

UNELECTED JUDGES SHOULD NOT

BE REDEFINING MARRIAGES.

Gordon: BUT HASN'T

THERE BEEN A WHOLE LINK OF

SUPREME COURT CASES, GOING

ALL THE WAY TO GRISWALD,

ONCE YOU FIND THE PRIVACY

AROUND SEX, AFTER THE

SUPREME COURT RULED THAT

HOMOSEXUAL SEX IS PROTECTED

AS WELL, DOESN'T THAT DEAN

LEAD TO SINCE IT IS

PROTECTED ACTIVITY, SO IF

THEY WANT TO MARRY, THAT IS

CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED?

I DON'T THINK THAT

FOLLOWS.

THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR THE

FREEDOM TO LIVE AND TO LOVE

HOW THEY WANT TO.

THEY ALREADY HAVE THAT.

IN ALL 50 STATES, TWO PEOPLE

OF THE SAME-SEX CAN LIVE

WITH EACH OTHER AND LOVE

EACH OTHER.

THEY CAN GO TO A LIBERAL

CHURCH AND HAVE A CEREMONY

PERFORMED, AND THEY CAN WORK

FOR A LIBERAL BUSINESS AND

HAVE BENEFITS.

IT IS VERY MUCH A LIVE AND

LET LIVE.

WHAT THEY'RE ASKING IS FOR

THE SUPREME COURT TO

REDEFINE MARRIAGE, AND HAVE

GOVERNMENT USE THE COERCIVE

POWER OF LAW TO FORCE PEOPLE

LIKE YOU AND ME AND OUR

BUSINESSES AND COMMUNITIES,

TO RECOGNIZE THE SAME-SEX

RELATIONSHIP AS IF IT IS A

MARRIAGE.

SO THE COERCION ASPECT WORKS

IN THE EXACT OPPOSITE

DIRECTION.

YOU SEE PHOTOGRAPHERS AND

FLORISTS AND IN KEEPERS --

Gordon: IF THE SUPREME

COURT DOES RULE THERE IS A

CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION

FOR THIS, DO YOU SEE IT

OPENING THE DOOR AGAIN TO

POLYGAMY?

WHAT THEY NOW CALL

POLLYAMOROUS RELATIONSHIPS,

AND THOSE PEOPLE RECOGNIZED

AS MARRIAGE.

Reporter: JUSTICE

SODAMEYER ASKED THAT OF THE

OPPOSING LAWYER, AND HE

DIDN'T HAVE A PERSUASIVE

RESPONSE.

SHE SAID, IF THERE IS A

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO

MARRIAGE, WHAT LIMITS COULD

THE STATE PLACE ON THAT

UNION?

AND SHE ASKED THE QUESTION

OF THE NUMBER OF

PARTICIPANTS.

BECAUSE IF MARRIAGE IS JUST

ABOUT A COMMUNITY OF LOVE,

WHATEVER CONSENTING ADULTS

CHOOSE TO LOVE, THAT CAN

COME IN AS MANY SIZES AND

SHAPES AS CONSENT COMES IN.

SO IF YOU CAN MARRY THE

PERSON YOU LOVE, WHY NOT THE

PEOPLE YOU LOVE.

IF JUSTICE DEMANDS MARRIAGE

FOR THE SAME-SEX COUPLE, BUT

WHY ABOUT FOR THREE

PEOPLE?

WE HAVE -- WE CAN GIVE AN

ANSWER IF YOU AGREE IT IS

ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN --

THAT'S HOW WE GOT TO MON

MONOGAMY, BUT ONCE YOU SAY

THAT IS IRRATIONAL, IT IS

NOT CLEAR HOW YOU KEEP IT TO

MONOGAMY.

Gordon: UTAH WASN'T

ALLOWED TO BE A STATE UNTIL

THEY OUTLAWED POLYGAMY.

SO IF WE GET AWAY FROM THAT

PRINCIPLE, WHERE DO YOU SEE

THIS GOING?

THERE IS A LAWSUIT RIGHT

NOW IN UTAH, ARGUE FOR A

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO

PRACTICE POLYGAMY.

AND I WAS AT NEW YORK

UNIVERSITY A COUPLE OF WEEKS

AGO DEBATING ONE OF THE

PROFESSORS THERE.

AND SHE SAYS IT IS

HYPOCRITICAL THAT WE

CRIMINALIZE POLYGAMY.

AND THERE WAS AN ARTICLE IN

A MAGAZINE ARGUING IN FAVOR

OF POLYGAMY.

ONE OF MY FEARS IS THAT THE

SLIPPERY SLOPE ISN'T EXACTLY

A SLOPE.

IT IS ACTUALLY A LEVEL

PLAYING FIELD.

MORE OR LESS EVERYTHING ELSE

ABOUT MARRIAGE FALLS BY THE

WAYSIDE.

Gordon: THE BOOK IS

"WHAT IS MARRIAGE, MAN AND

WOMEN, A DEFENSE," AND

RYAN'S BOOK IS AVAILABLE

WHEREVER BOOKS ARE SOLD.

THANK YOU FOR COMING.

THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.

EMBED THIS VIDEO


Log in or create an account to post a comment.  

CBN.com | Do You Know Jesus? | Privacy Notice | Prayer Requests | Support CBN | Contact Us | Feedback
© 2012 Christian Broadcasting Network