Skip to main content

Ten Reasons Why “Same-Sex Marriage” Affects Your Marriage
John Barber, Ph.D.

Supporters of same-sex marriage often ask its opponents, “How would same-sex marriage negatively affect your marriage?” Here are just ten ways:

1. Same-sex marriage reduces the worth of your marriage

Redefining marriage to include people of the same sex is a legal endorsement of the fungibility of a man and woman in marriage. To set “any two persons” on a par with a man and a woman in marriage is to reduce the worth of their roles. To draw an analogy, if a government declared the price of coal to be equivalent with the price of gold, would the cost of coal go up, or would the cost of gold come down? The price of gold would come down. Traditional marriage is the gold standard of marriage. People who affirm gay/lesbian marriage as equivalent in worth to the marriage of a husband and a wife devalue the worth of your marriage.

2.  Your marriage will be forced to abide by the social strictures of same-sex marriage

By legalizing same-sex marriage the state becomes its official advocate. Thus, in every public forum where marriage rights extend to gays and lesbians, the state will expect you to comply. Local judges will be called upon to conduct the new civil ceremony. Any restraints within the public schools to advocate for the LGBTQ culture will be removed fully. In the private sphere, owners of rental properties must agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants. Businesses offering wedding services will be forced to cater same-sex ceremonies, and much more. If your traditional marriage touches these, or similar areas, you can expect it to be affected.

3.  The rights of spouses to dissent same-sex marriage will be infringed

Once “marriage-equality” is achieved its advocates will work through the courts and other means to silence dissent. Should you and your spouse refuse to comply with any new regulations pursuant to the redistribution of marriage rights, even if that failure is based on conscientious objections, you can be penalized. If it is an intrinsic value of a heterosexual married couple to oppose same-sex marriage, and that right is infringed, then that marriage has suffered injury. Many black churches, in replying to the objection that Christians ought to stay out of politics, have argued that political speech is inherent to the Black Church experience. The inherent right of heterosexual spouses to protest gay/lesbian marriage will suffer damage under the new definition of marriage.

4. Same-sex marriage will absorb your marriage into a new view of reality

The basic argument for same-sex marriage states that there is no fundamental difference between the rights of gays/lesbians and heterosexuals to marry. Supporting the legal claim of “gender equality” is a view of human sexuality that erodes natural, gender-specific, differences between men and woman. The result is a “unisexual” view of personhood which, rather than affirm diversity, blurs it beyond recognition. The unisexual view of personhood is part of global move toward a hermaphroditic understanding of reality. According to this vision of things “all religions are equal” (unireligion); “all nations are equal” (one world order), etc. Ironically, diversity, the very thing secularism claims to champion, is what it destroys. Unity (two people becoming one) and diversity (a husband and a wife) are held in perfect balance in traditional marriage. 

5.  Same-sex marriage makes the concepts of husband and wife irrelevant in your marriage

When the California Supreme Court held  In re Marriage Cases (2008) held that “California legislative and initiative measures limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violate the state constitutional rights of same-sex couples and may not be used to preclude same-sex couples from marrying” (News Release 26, May 15, 2008, In re Marriage Cases, S147999),  the court order decreed that all marriages would have the respective parties designated as “party A” and “party B.” That ruling was a result of the Court’s acknowledgement that it could afford by statute domestic partnerships all the rights and privileges of marriage but not labels similar to “husband” and “wife.” That left gays and lesbians free to refer to their relationships any way they wanted e.g., spouse-partner, life partner-significant other, wife-wife, husband-husband, or whatever! The fact is that words have meaning. The elevation of same-sex marriage to that of traditional marriage, combined with the use of random nomenclature to designate parties in same-sex marriage, absorbs and reduces time-honored roles of husbands and wives into a morass of meaningless linguistic jargon.

6.  Same-sex marriage will obfuscate the state’s interests in your marriage

As Justice O’Connor said in her concurring opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, “preserving the traditional institution of marriage” is a “legitimate state interest.” (Lawrence v. Texas, 123 S. Ct. 2472, 2487-88 (2003) (O’Connor, J., concurring). Such interests are predicated mainly in the fact that heterosexual couples can produce children which facilitates social order and the longevity of the state. State interest in marriage extends to the well-being of a child, for should a family fail to protect a child that responsibly can fall to the state. However, if marriage is to have any social value the social meaning of marriage must remain apparent and protected. For, “the contribution of family life to the conditions that develop and sustain long-term personal fulfillment and autonomy depends (among many other important factors) upon maintaining the family as a legally defined and structurally significant entity.” Bruce C. Hafen, The Family as an Entity, 22 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 865, 867 (1989). Anything less than preserving the traditional definition of marriage creates an imprecise relationship between the state and your marriage

7.  Same-sex marriage defeats the purpose of the state’s interest in benefiting your marriage

A reason the federal government bestows numerous benefits on families with children, including child tax credits, is due to their social significance. The intent and design of heterosexual marriage is to provide the normal and stable conditions for the birth and upbringing of children. Homosexual marriage is not aimed at providing such conditions. Its chief purpose is the personal gratification of two individuals whose relationship is inherently barren. A major agenda item of gay activists is to secure a range of federal, state, and local benefits, hitherto enjoyed by traditional marriages. Should that goal be met fully, courts would only serve to empty traditional marriage of its significant social meaning, other than the respect of personal preferences. Should that ensue, would the federal government (especially one burdened economically) still see the necessity to continue to extend tax breaks to married heterosexual couples with children? Child tax credits could be offered to gay/lesbian couples who adopt. But the government could also choose to "level the playing field" by maintaining deductions for dependents whether they are children or spouses. 

8. Same-sex marriage challenges the nature of your marriage

If marriage is a civil right for all, then what is to stop other types of non-traditional relationships? Why not permit incestuous and polygamous marriages? Why not allow marriages between adults and children? How about nuptials between people and animals? Will the age of tolerance permit Muslim men to take multiple wives while Muslim women are restricted to one husband? These horrific possibilities destroy the nature of marriage as a sacred union between a man and a woman. 

9.  The redistribution of marriage rights modifies your marriage as a natural entity afforded legal recognition

Marriage is a naturally occurring relationship. A purpose of U.S. law is to create a flourishing context for the family to govern itself. Put differently, the state does not create marriage but is to create complimentary environments in which martial life is legally recognized and protected. Redefining marriage by legal fiat changes this point of reference. It shifts the legal posture of the state from recognizing a preexisting institution to creating the institution after its own image and likeness. The state would become the originator of your marriage. Case in point, the Hawaii Supreme Court called marriage “a state conferred legal partnership status.” Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44, 58 (Haw. 1993).

10.  The legal legitimization of same-sex marriage affects your status as a father or a mother

In a prominent Massachusetts case allowing joint custody for the partner of a child’s biological mother, the court ruled that a “de facto” parent “performs a share of caretaking functions at least as great as the legal parent.” E.N.O. v. L.M.M., 711 N.E.2d 886, 891 (Mass. 1999). One can safely assume that no husband has faced the need to be acknowledged a “de facto” parent of his wife’s child. Let’s assume that the titular “marriage” is between two men and that one of the men is the natural parent of a little girl. Affirming that the male partner in a gay marriage is equivalent to the natural relationship of a mother in “caretaking function” is not only preposterous. It marks a monumental shift in the posture of the law toward the capability of parents within marriage and therefore the status of both mother and father relevant to their child. 


ACLU of Northern California. "Landmark Cases."

Duncan,  William C. "The State Interests of Marriage." 2 Ave Maria L. Rev. 153. (2004).

Hafen, Bruce C. "The Family as an Entity", 22 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 865, 867 (1989).

New Release, "California Supreme Court Rules in Marriage Cases." Release Number: 26.  May 15, 2008.

Legal Information Institute. "Lawrence vs. Texas." Cornell University law School.

Baehr v. Lewin. Hawai’i Supreme Court 74 Haw. 645, 852 P.2d 44 May 5, 


  1. Excellent points made. Some of the changes regarding parenting have already gone to court in CA and other states. Here's a link that discusses the multiple parent issue and how it will be used as a wedge issue to completely change marriage as we know it.

  2. ... April Fools!

    (Or were you being serious?)

  3. This is a fantastic article - thank you for sharing this with us! SO many people focus on the emotional aspects of ssm - 'They just want to love each other, and you're denying their love.' There are SO many social ramifications to consider, and when you see the evidence laid out in this way, how can you NOT see the terrible implications of what ssm brings to our nation?

  4. Settle in, my friends, because my response will be quite a ride. Yep, I've rebutted every point.

    1) Comparing coal to gold, are we? Isn't coal where diamonds come from? Also, the cost of gold should be considered an arbitrary thing, in the sense that all those thousands of years ago, someone had to first declare gold worth any value, so if anything, all this means is that coal will could one day have the same value.

    2) Re the "social strictures" you claim all will have to abide by--GOOD! Because you should never have had the right to treat opposite-sex marriage as the superior form.

    3) See #2, but don't worry - we won't force you to get gay married to us.

    4) Spoken from a person with no understanding of diversity whatsoever, and a bit tinged on conspiracy theories.

    5) If I was married to a woman, and my gay friend wanted to marry another man, I wouldn't think my title as husband any more or less relevant, but again, that's my personal viewpoint. You will not be stopped from calling your spouse by the name wife, but you will be stopped mine trying to determine the names of mine or any other union. It's none of your business, and I do not have any regard whatsoever your authoirty to claim so.

    6) Going to great lengths to sound all important 'n stuff, are we? I chuckled at the whole "social meaning" part. Political power grabs aside, you really do need to learn the critical thinking concept of "level of specificity."

    7) To say that I am getting married solely for the purpose of emptying the government's pockets is both incorrect and insulting. My union is significant, whether or not you think it is "normal." And do we really need to go there about barren unions? (Infertile couples, marriages where one spouse is paralyzed, etc.)

    8) Please use a better oil next time you go sliding down that slippery slope. How many times does it have to be said that children, animals and plans cannot give their consent, therefore those kinds of unions could never happen.

    #9. Ummmm…no. My marriage, whether to a man or a woman, is still a God-created sacrament. The love I feel for my spouse was put there by God just as much as yours.

    #10. This point in its entirety sounds like something that a student thought up at 3 a.m. as filler in a term paper because he had to form some kind of answer--not coherent in the slightest (oh by the way, you ended the fifth sentence in the paragraph with a period, where it should have had a comma, followed by the final sentence. Proofreading is important.

  5. Next time you write in your "expert" voice, you might want to leave the logic filter on.

    Although I'm not a big supporter of gays trying to emulate everything heterosexuals have done wrong (such as the sanctity of marriage with a divorce rate in excess of 50%), your points are so clearly flawed, even my 6 year old niece would be able to point it out.

    Unless, of course, you are specifically targeting the part of the population that lives life with their heads up their behinds.

  6. Ph.D.? Really? Do they not require English and writing classes for advanced degrees any longer? What happened to critical thinking? Very sad.

  7. Sweet Jesus, this may be the worst piece of dreck I've ever read!

  8. Equal rights for allApril 29, 2013 at 1:56 AM

    Who ever you are anonymous person you sound more of a dumb ass then the guy who wrote this piece of crap. I think people like you and this guy need to stop making it seem like gay marriage is going to destroy marriage between a man and a woman. Because I am sorry you all do that on your own already and the gays have nothing to do with that sorry.

  9. Ph.D. in what exactly? Theology I'm guessing.. probably from one of those bible colleges. Fork over the cash, learn nothing but the narrow mindedness shown in this piece of work, and walk out claiming Ph.D. One day the hate and discrimination you show to people different than you will bite you hard.

  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

  11. This has to be one of the weakest marriage *defenses* I've encountered. So many complaints, yet so few that have anything to do with anyone else's marriage.

    Click here to read my response, and add your comments if you wish.

  12. Although the author may have "Ph.D." appended to his name, it seems clear that his studies did not focus on the rules and principles of logic, deductive, inductive, analogic, or modal. Sad, innit?

  13. You are quite the bigot, eh?

  14. The arguments in favor of same-sex marriage are based on flawed views of heterosexual marriage. The reason divorce is 50% among heterosexuals is they, like same-sex marriage advocates believe marriage is all about them. The Scriptures tell us its not about us but about God. Marriage gives us a glimpse of unity and diversity that God is. Same-Sex marriage denies the diversity of God in three persons and therefore speaks lies about the nature and character of God.

  15. "I'm the King of Alaska" - I declared yesterday ! which is about as silly & legal as two homosexual individuals declaring they're "married" - you're not. Not now, not ever. You may THINK you're married, hey, the legal system may try to foist that silliness on the rest of us.....but you're not. Your FRIENDS & family will pat you on the back, but the rest of America will smile and shake their heads at such foolishness. Homosexuals DO have a place in our society, they deserve rights ! ( I agree) I would have supported a "Union" or ..."Civil Tie" HELL, "Mash-up" -You are foolish to truly believe that you can incorporate a sacred union between woman & man (man & woman) into your situation; you can't. The law may say you can....but the law also gives me the freedom of speech to yell that I am the "King of Alaska" - don't make it true. Eric can refute all he wants - it makes NO difference. :-) ~ cheers

  16. This comment has been removed by the author.

  17. Real Free Porn Video Sex Downlord web Visted link

  18., India's leading matrimonial portal site strive hard to provide you the perfect match with a touch of tradition from a wide array of community, caste, city and much more for the global Indian community you can find your life partner with help of makemylove
    matrimonials sites indiaShaadi Sites

  19. Good luck on your Move
    :) I hope that you'd find more fun on your new place ^__^
    I hope that youd blog about your new place later, im really excited to know :)


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Andy Stanley and the “NEW Hermeneutic”

The problem of faith and reason is longstanding in the history of theology. Augustine held that faith aids reason (credo ut intelligam) and that reason aids faith (intelligo un creadam). The church father is, however, inclined to stress the later over the former. It was with Thomas Aquinas, and his Summa Theologica, that the effort to reconcile faith and reason reached its apex. Rejecting the medieval doctrine of double truth, he placed natural reason prior to faith in effectively every area of the Christian life. The restrictions are the mysteries of the faith that reason cannot penetrate.
Thomas’ affirmation of the high role of native reason in Christian belief is linked to his stress on dialectical method in study, seminally set forth by Peter Abelard. The form of study is dependent largely on logic to argue both sides of a theological question. Christian belief is thus the proper result of process or synthesis. Faith then assents to the final proposition arrived at by reason.

Pat Robertson is Warned!

Pat Robertson is taking it on the chin again. Seems each time he opines on why bad things happen to us, there is someone to call him on it.
Most recently, Dr. Richard Mouw has taken up the challenge in response to Robertson's recent statement on the Las Vegas shooting, in which at least 59 people were killed and more than 500 were wounded in the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history.
In a piece, titled, "You've Been Warned, PatRobertson!" Mouw, for whom I have deep respect, pens,

"It didn’t take long for some preachers to start telling us why God caused the horrible mass murder in Las Vegas to happen. Pat Robertson led the way, declaring that it was divine retribution for the widespread 'disrespect' for Donald Trump in America."
If Robertson had limited his rationale for the Vegas shooting to God punishing us for people dissing the President, I'd be smacking him on the chin myself. But he didn't.
Robertson's brief remarks f…

Is Our Knowledge of God Analogical of Univocal?

As a matter of first principles in apologetics, we can ask, “What does the unbeliever know about God?” However, the biblical apologetic is shaped not only by what Scripture says the unbeliever knows, but also by what it reveals he can know; is capable of knowing, as a believer. So we might also ask, “Is it our hope that the unbeliever can know God as God knows himself or that he can know God reflectively, in a creaturely way?” This is the univocal/analogical problem in Christian epistemology. 

The question arises in the context of the structure of human thought. It bears its own unique dilemma. If we stress too excessively that knowledge of God is univocal we run the risk of lowering the incomprehensible God to the level of the finite and make God as one of us. But if we stress too emphatically knowledge of God per analogiam we may very well deprive God of all likeness to the humanity he has created with the result that all we are left with is a barren, abstraction.

To a considerable…