Category Archives: Ethics

Progressive Thought? More like Oppressive Intolerance

Many colleges today unfortunately see themselves as the standard bearers of "progressive thought" and "equality." Following the trend of popular culture, universities believe it is their role to spread the acceptance of same-sex "marriage" as well as new theories on gender and race relations. When students refuse to acquiesce to their ideologies, however, colleges often react in unjust and intolerant ways. LifeSiteNews reports on one such case:

ThinkstockPhotos-86531925Gender and homosexuality politics are among the areas the professors are looking to influence the young people in their classes, along with race and immigration ideology.

The affronting terms that could land students in hot water in a number of Washington State University classes include “illegal alien” and “illegals,” reports, but also considered oppressive and hateful by one teacher are the very definitions of gender, “male” and “female.”


A Marquette University student was prohibited from articulating his Biblical view of marriage last year, and a tenured professor was fired from there last year as well for voicing his view in support of marriage.

Johns Hopkins University denied a pro-life student organization recognition in 2013 until threatened with legal action.

Religious freedom banners were prohibited at Sinclair College in Ohio a year earlier.

A lawsuit was filed against Los Angeles Community College District in 2009 after a professor censored and threatened to expel a student who had given a speech on marriage and his Christian faith in a public speaking class. The professor had also told his class they were a “fascist (explicative)” if they voted for California’s Proposition 8 in defense of marriage.

It is a great hypocrisy when the so-called proponents of "tolerance" become worse than the very people they claim to be fighting. Help us expose these deceitful ideals and bring the hypocrisy about "equality" to an end.

The Double Standard of "Equality"

The rash of bakery-closings on account of charges of "discrimination" has been appalling. Now, same-sex marriage activists have plans to shut down all Chick-fil-A locations in Denver—an act in the same vein as closing bakeries, but on a much larger scale. The Federalist explains the twisted logic behind this movement:

Photo Credit: Chris Potter/Flickr

Photo Credit: Chris Potter/Flickr

Now, in an effort to save everyone some time, the cultural imperialists at the Denver City Council—which, to be fair, have long exhibited authoritarian impulses—have decided to skip the pretense of some trumped-up injustice and jumped right to discriminating against a businesses solely because of the beliefs of its CEO.

The Denver Council’s Business Development Committee has stalled a seven-year deal with Chick-fil-A because CEO Dan Cathy spoke out against gay marriage back in 2012. Cathy, after being flogged for this misconduct, backed off , saying he regretted getting involved. But that won’t do. There are no prisoners in this culture war. So the council will meet in couple of weeks to take up the topic again. Not so the members can take time to chew over the significance of a city punishing its citizens for their thoughts and beliefs, or even to weigh the importance of tolerance in a vibrant city like Denver. They’re waiting to have a closed-door committee hearing with city attorneys, who will brief them on the legal implications and practicality of shutting down apostates.


Denver Councilman Paul Lopez, who is leading the intellectual charge for the ban—a task that meshes poorly with his skill set—says that, in the end, opposition to the chain at DIA is ”really, truly a moral issue.” Now, when the Founders told us that government can make no law respecting an establishment of religion, I took it to mean that the belief system of a union-installed sock puppet on a city council would be completely irrelevant in matters of expression and faith. Really, truly.


Now, everyone is free to boycott and protest whomever they please. Citizens and elected officials have every right to work to cut off taxpayer funding to businesses and institutions they find morally distasteful. But if the city council of Anytown, USA were to concoct reasons to deny permits to gay business owners who supported same-sex marriage, many Americans would find that rightfully appalling. If you’re okay with the idea of a city council denying orthodox Christians who believe in traditional marriage the same freedom, you’re a massive hypocrite—and probably worse.

There is a glaring double-standard when it comes to "equality." When it comes to marriage, the idea of equality only exists for those who agree with a redefined understanding of marriage: those who disagree are to be punished. This is another example of why Congress and the states need to pass the First Amendment Defense Act to protect people from discrimination for supporting marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

See The Federalist for more.

Cheating Marriage: A Tragedy in Three Acts

NOM Chairman John Eastman, one of our nation’s most distinguished constitutional law scholars, has watched the marriage litigation of the last several years unfold from a front row seat. Dr. Eastman is a former US Supreme Court clerk, former Dean and current Professor of Law at the Fowler School of Law at Chapman University and Founding Director of the Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence. He knows how the legal system is supposed to perform, which is why it has been so disheartening and disillusioning to see how it was manipulated by the left to advance the cause of redefining marriage.

Dr. Eastman has written a brilliant article, Cheating Marriage: A Tragedy in Three Acts, which documents the unbelievable collusion between elected officials, litigants and judges in the cases that invalidated Proposition 8 in California and the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which served as the foundation to redefine marriage for the entire nation. The article has recently been published in the Ave Maria Law Review, and is also available for download on SSRN.

We encourage all NOM supporters to download and read this articulate, carefully researched and highly enlightened article. Below is a small abstract from SSRN:

ThinkstockPhotos-87160932In his dissenting opinion in United States v. Windsor, Justice Scalia accused the Court of “cheating,” because it decided an issue that properly belonged to the voters. But the cheating that went on in the case, and the parallel case involving Proposition 8 in California, was also of the vintage variety. This article tells the largely untold story about the many machinations by elected officials and judges to produce the end result in favor of same-sex marriage, from conflicts of interest, to collusion by nominally “opposing” counsel, and finally to an aggressive refusal by high-ranking government lawyers (including one who would then cast the deciding vote in the case) to defend laws for which there were perfectly reasonable defenses well-rooted in then-existing precedent.

Urge Your Congressmen to Support FADA

A recent letter from the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention to the Senate Majority Leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell, and Speaker of the House, John Boehner, implores the Congress to pass the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) immediately. With the imposition of same-sex ‘marriage’ by the US Supreme Court, religious freedom has come under fire. The letter succinctly characterizes the need for this act:

ThinkstockPhotos-89614910The First Amendment Defense Act will help to ensure the protection of the core American value of religious freedom. The bill bars the federal government from taking “any discriminatory action against a person, wholly or partially on the basis that such person believes or as in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as the union between one man and one woman, or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.” Such adverse action includes federal government discrimination in such areas as programs, grants, contracts, and tax treatment against individuals and organizations that believe on religious grounds that marriage is between a man and a woman. The bill also provides crucial protection for our nation’s faith-based institutions.

Governmental discrimination on the basis of religious belief and practice about marriage will have devastating effect on people of faith, their institutions, and the communities they serve. Millions of law-abiding, faithful people are likely to be suddenly deemed bigots and social outcasts. Their institutions will be crippled and many may cease to exist. Most distressing, millions of people will lose the safety net and affirming services they depend on each and every day, from daycare to meals to job training to adoption.

Failure to pass FADA will result in the alienation of millions of Americans, and will render the United States fundamentally unjust. Urge your congressmen to support FADA and to support religious freedom.

Collusion, Improper Communication, and Bias Against ‘Sweet Cakes’

Kelsey Harkness of The Daily Signal exposes actions by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Basic Rights Oregon to persecute the small business of Sweet Cakes by Melissa. Sweet Cakes held to their religious beliefs by turning down business that involved a wedding cake for a same-sex ceremony, before same-sex marriage was even legal in Oregon.

It appears that the advocacy group and the government agency had been holding meetings, as well as exchanging emails and texts, to conspire against Sweet Cakes before same-sex marriage was legal, and in a completely biased manner.

ThinkstockPhotos-176997365The Daily Signal has exclusively learned that the government agency responsible for enforcing Oregon’s anti-discrimination law appears to be working closely with a powerful gay rights advocacy group in its case against Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa.

Communications between the agency, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, and the LGBT organization, Basic Rights Oregon, raise questions about potential bias in the state’s decision to charge the Kleins with discrimination for refusing to make a cake for a same-sex wedding.

Communications obtained through a public records request show employees of the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries—which pursued the case against the Kleins—participating in phone calls, texting, and attending meetings with Basic Rights Oregon, the largest LGBT advocacy group in the state.

Harkness explains the issues in these discriminating communications:

“That’s a clear conflict of interest,” Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal.

State agencies have a duty to represent the best interests of the general public, not the interests of one particular advocacy group. The relationship shown by these communications is inappropriate and raises basic questions about the objectivity, bias, and fairness of this agency and its proceedings.

According to emails, Avakian met with Basic Rights Oregon on multiple occasions.

Read the full article at The Daily Signal.

Parents Shouldn't Provide What is Best for Their Children?

There are proponents in academia who have suggested that parents who educate their children to the best of their ability, is “unfair” to other children who do not receive the same opportunity. As ridiculous as this idea seems, it is an honest, though outlandish, theory that some want put into practice. Adam Swift (Prof. at University of Warwick) is a key proponent of this theory, and he seems to have backing from other academics such as Peter Singer (Ethics Prof. at University of Princeton) as well as public figures such as Pres. Barack Obama:

Parents Helping Their Children With Their Homework

President Obama used language of inequality to critique parents who send their kids to private schools and health clubs just this week.

“Kids start going to private schools, kids start working out at private clubs instead of the public parks, an anti-government ideology then disinvests from those common goods and those things that draw us together,” he said.

“One way philosophers might think about solving the social-justice problem would be by simply abolishing the family,” he (Adam Swift) continues, cheerfully. “If the family is this source of unfairness in society, then it looks plausible to think that if we were to abolish the family, we would create a more level playing field.”

The article continues to explain the folly of holding ‘equality’ as the highest good:

Sarcasm aside, we owe Swift a real debt of gratitude for demonstrating the folly of Progressive equality-worship. Although his ideas are at the extreme end of the Progressive spectrum, the language of “equality” and the decrying of “inequality” is pervading our culture.

Of course, American liberty was founded on the idea that all men are created equal. But when people speak of equality these days, they usually mean not fundamental equality before the law, but rather state-engineered equality of socioeconomic outcomes. Perhaps by seeing this ideology taken to its insane extreme, we can recognize its failings more clearly.

The idea is to take all power, even from the parents, and center it into the State (Federal Government) so that it may decide what is best in all things.

It’s hard not to see that beneath all the egalitarian language lies a bald-faced power grab. Swift—and those who share his worldview—believe they are entitled to make mandatory rules for others which they refuse to adopt for themselves… Swift is operating squarely within the tradition of all Marxist dictators past and present, who style themselves champions of the common man but never deny themselves the luxuries of the ruling class.

Full article available via The Federalist.

Corrections: Where the Same-Sex Advocates Got It Wrong

In an article recently posted on The Public Discourse, James Phillips, an assistant professor of law at Brigham Young University, highlights and responds to errors made by pro-same-sex marriage justices Kennedy and Sotomayor. Phillips points out that there were 6 major errors in logic, precedent, and history made to support the passing of a same-sex marriage bill last week.

This post will outline these 6 errors, as well as the arguments against them.

Error #1: Massachusetts Marriage Rates Have Stayed the Same

Justice Sotomayor claimed that Massachusetts’ heterosexual marriage rates have remained constant since the state allowed same-sex marriage. If she had paid attention to an opposing amicus brief filed by 100 Scholars of Marriage, she would have seen that data clearly tells us otherwise, for instance:

Marriage rates have dropped by 8.9 percent since the state [MA] redefined marriage. And Massachusetts is not alone. The marriage scholars were also able to obtain data on opposite-sex marriage rates from three other states that have legalized same-sex marriage… Vermont (-5.1 percent), Connecticut (-7.3 percent), and Iowa (-9.2 percent).

ThinkstockPhotos-131579672Error #2: Because Some Men Leave Their Wives and Children, Marriage Does Not Help Keep Fathers Around

Justice Sotomayer argued that marriage between a man and a woman doesn’t actually increase the likelihood of creating a stable family life:

‘Marriage doesn’t do that on any level. How many married couples do fathers with the benefits or the requirements of marriage walk away from their children? So it’s not that the institution alone does it and that without it that father is going to stay in marriage.’

But as Phillips points out:

This is a classic example of the exception fallacy. Of course some men and women walk away from their marriage and their children. But that is the exception, not the rule, and it is certainly counter to the social norm of marriage.

Error #3: The Purpose of States’ Recognizing and Regulating Marriage is to Bestow Dignity on Couples

When Mr. Bursch brought forth the argument that the states are not in the marriage business to bestow dignity, Justice Kennedy expressed surprise at this, stating that he believed that whole purpose of “traditional marriage” was to bestow dignity on both man and woman. Now same-sex couples want that same “ennoblement.” But as Phillips explains:

Justice Kennedy was missing the point. He was confusing the reason that a couple may desire to be married with the reason that a state would want to recognize and regulate marriage. Those are distinct.

Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that states were interested in bestowing dignity on couples by allowing them to marry, that would be a means to enticing couples to marry. The end or purpose of encouraging marriage in this way would still be the fact that society—particularly children—benefits when men and women marry. It makes no sense for the state to go through the trouble and expense to regulate and subsidize marriage if the state gets nothing out of it in return—and it’s not simply about bestowing dignity on consenting adult love of all sizes and shapes.

Error #4: The Only Harm to Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage Is Making Marriage More Adult-Centered

ThinkstockPhotos-465562267When several justices struggled to comprehend how redefining marriage to genderless terms would impact and harm the institution of marriage, Mr. Bursch correctly, but incompletely, argued how it would change the focus of marriage from fulfilling the needs of children to fulfilling the desires adults. If marriage is redefined, then the norm of fulfilling a child’s need to be raised by a man and a woman in order to learn how necessary interactions from each one, would be eliminated. And this is only one effect.

Error #5: There Is a Parallel between: Brown/Loving and Lawrence/Obergefell

The time between the Supreme Court decision calling for desegregation of elementary schools, the famous Brown v. Board of Education, and the decision invalidating state laws that prohibited mixed-race marriages (Loving v. Virginia), was thirteen years.

But man-woman marriage has been the law in every state since the birth of the nation—and in every Western nation for millennia. As Justice Kennedy put it, “I don’t even know how to count the decimals when we talk about millennia.

Not all thirteen year periods are equivalent. They certainly are not here.

Error #6: Age Restrictions on Marriage Are Equivalent to the Definitional Element of One Man and One Woman

Several justices tried to form the analogy of recognizing exceptions to age restrictions to recognizing same-sex marriages. But as Phillips explained:

Not all exceptions are equal. Age has never been a part of the definition of marriage... There are two historical and universal components to the definition of marriage in the United States, and in the Western world: gender diversity and only two spouses, one man and one woman. All other features—age, race, religion, coverture, dowry—are not part of the fundamental definition.

The American people want our justices to base their decisions on facts, and not make such errors in their decision as outlined here. Since the citizens of the United States will have to live with this decision for the entirety of America’s future, it would be best if such a decision had a basis in not only what the public wants, but also the truth of such matters.

Source via The Public Discourse

Gourmet Craziness: The "Genderbread Person 2.0"

Gingerbread men are a staple in many households around the holidays, but (alas!) in our Brave New World this treasured holiday icon apparently could be taken as perpetuating old and outdated stereotypes about men and women. What is a discerning cultural gourmet to do? Have no fear! Meet The Genderbread Person 2.0!

File this under things you simply can't make up.

This "edugraphic" (read "indoctrination tool") is the product of "social justice advocate and ally" Sam Killerman, who runs a website centered around his one-man comedy show called It's Pronounced MetrosexualAccording to the site, "Sam travels the country and performs the show for students at colleges and universities." If you have a university student, you might want to ask whether their college student orientation included a staging of this production.

The content of the show is unclear to us, but judging from Sam's blog, one can imagine what sort of values it proposes. For instance, he has articles on "Examples of Christian Privilege" and "Examples of Cisgender Privilege" that implicitly paint Christians and "cisgender" persons as oblivious bullies.

What's a "cisgender" person, you ask? Sam explains that this "means having a biological sex that matches your gender identity and expression, resulting in other people accurately perceiving your gender."

Among the "privileges" of the cisgendered, Sam lists "being able to pretend that anatomy and gender are irrevocably entwined when having the “boy parts and girl parts” talk with children, instead of explaining the actual complexity of the issue."

Of course this "pretending" is meant to be exploded by The Genderbread Person 2.0, which demonstrates how "biological sex" actually contains "infinite... possible plot and label combos" on two parallel continua from "asex" to "female-ness" and "maleness" -- among which just some of the options are "male, female, intersex, female-self-identifying, and male-self-identifying."

In all, Sam's work seems to highlight for us the larger picture of which redefining marriage into a genderless institution is an integral part. A future with genderless marriage is the same future in which children would lack the right to privacy in using the bathroom of their biological sex and in which something as simple as a Christmas cookie may be construed as hearkening back to an oppressive and bigoted past.

Anderson: "The Social Costs of Abandoning the Meaning of Marriage"

The first submission to this week's symposium at The Intercollegiate Review is a reprint of a great essay by What is Marriage? co-author and Heritage fellow Ryan T. Anderson, "The Social Costs of Abandoning the Meaning of Marriage."

Married Couple HandsAnderson points out why the question of how we define marriage is a social issue which cuts across differences of religion or philosophy: it's just good common sense.

Whatever one thinks about the morality of sexually open marriages, multi-partner marriages, and by-design-temporary marriages, the social costs will run high. The marital norms of monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanency make a difference for society.

Concern about the direction of our society's norms about marriage as reflected in law are accessible to anyone who cares about the social welfare and about the role of government, Anderson explains, because "[a]fter all, law affects culture. Culture affects beliefs. Beliefs affect actions. The law teaches, and it will shape not just a handful of marriages but the public understanding of what marriage is."

Redefining marriage to say that men and women are interchangeable, that "monogamish" relationships work just as well as monogamous relationships, that "throuples" are the same as couples, and that "wedlease" is preferable to wedlock will only lead to more broken homes, more broken hearts, and more intrusive government.

Click here to read the rest.

Symposium on "Sex and the Polis" Hosted at the Intercollegiate Review

The indefatigable Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI) is hosting a symposium beginning this week at their online publication, The Intercollegiate Review, which our readers may want to follow.

Man Woman SculptureThe symposium is entitled "Sex and the Polis: Perspectives on Marriage, Family, and Sexual Ethics," and the Review's Associate Editor Christopher Fisher explains its "mission" is "to better understand what effect these cultural trends in sexual ethics have on relationships, families, and the pursuit of the common good."

Fisher elaborates:

Our culture’s understanding of sexual ethics is largely defined by a seismic shift in the modern conception of marriage and family. This includes a rising tendency to delay marriage and children until later in life (or not have children at all, as evidenced by our lowest-ever birthrates); an acceptance and even expectation of pornography as an appropriate means of sexual gratification outside and inside of marriage; an equal expectation that all "normal" young adults will engage in pre-marital sex; openness to homosexuality and gay marriage; and a secular, non-sacramental definition of marriage and reproduction.


Yet most teachers, school administrators, students, health "experts," pundits, and even parents fail to see what effect sexual standards have on our culture and behavior, or the vast array of costly social problems caused by this breakdown.

One of Fisher's most compelling points is that these social costs lead ineluctably to a growth in government: "Smart libertarians ought to pay attention to the many ways that libertinism encourages the breakneck growth of the state."

Read his entire essay here, and keep an eye on The Intercollegiate Review for future submissions, including the opener by none other than NOM's good friend Ryan Anderson.

"Privacy for All Students" Effort Continues to Gain Steam


We've been keeping our readers informed about the ongoing efforts in California to overturn AB 1266, the "Co-ed Bathroom Law" - efforts which have brought together a broad coalition effort in the Privacy for All Students campaign, including NOM California and NOM's political consultant Frank Schubert.

In case you missed it, Frank was interviewed last Friday for National Review Online and explained to Alec Torres why he is optimistic about the initiative underway there:

Once people become aware of [the law], then they oppose it.... We’ve done a survey and what we’ve found is that only 35 percent of voters support this law, and 51 percent oppose it. When you [talk with individuals and] go through the pro and con arguments, we end up at over 60 percent opposition to the law.

A victorious repeal of the law is almost certain if the matter can be put on the ballot. That's what the Privacy for All Students coalition is busy working to do, gathering petition signatures to meet a November 8th deadline.

To find out how you can help, visit the coalition's website today.

When Do Commodified IVF Practices Turn Into Human Trafficking?

From redefining marriage to intentional single parenthood, we're seeing the prioritization of adult desires over the needs of children with increased frequency. The voices of children are silent, either because they're too young to articulate their own needs ...or they can't speak up about those needs at all.

As a society, how often do we consider the rights of donor-conceived people? The human beings who are literally 'manufactured' so that adults can end up with exactly what they want for themselves. Shouldn't birth be less about adults, and more about the life of the new person?

Alana Newman, founder of Anonymous Us

Alana Newman, founder of Anonymous Us

We’ve created a class of people who are manufactured, and treat them as less-than-fully human, demanding that they be grateful for whatever circumstances we give them. While fathers of traditionally conceived human beings are chased down and forced to make child support payments as a minimal standard of care, people conceived commercially are reprimanded when they question the anonymous voids that their biological fathers so “lovingly” left.

The crimes against the donor-conceived bend time and space. The adults that betray us do so before official personhood, which is the loophole through which this new form of human trafficking is made possible. Is gamete-selling all that different from baby-selling?

Today, human rights do not apply to the donor-conceived child because her humanity has been deconstructed and she is a product to please adults, a thing to service others and be consumed. She does not have a father like other people, nor a mother. She only has donors and “intended” parents. If she complains about the discrepancy, the world will ask her threateningly, would you rather not exist?

She fears what they’ll do if she answers honestly. -Alana S. Newman for MercatorNet

Today, IVF is even becoming a commodity in the stock market, which – by only a degree of separation – means in a very real way embryos are being monetized and commodified. Not much of a stretch to view many of these practices as legitimate human trafficking.

Christians Need Not Apply

Joseph Backholm, executive director of the Family Policy Institute of Washington, writes on the growing bias against people of faith in the public square:

If you don’t actually remember it, you’re certainly aware of the Cold War the United States was involved in with the USSR for forty-four years.  We were fighting, but everyone was being passive aggressive about it.

Cross NecklaceSomething similar has been happening culturally in the war on religious freedom.  For years the war has been undeclared and the damage to religious freedom has generally been classified as friendly fire. “I wasn’t shooting at you, I was trying to shoot hate and intolerance; so sorry about that.”

The victims have been numerous. ...around the country bakeries, doctors, counselors, court clerks, and wedding photographers have been victims of the war on intolerance; specifically because of their beliefs about sexuality and marriage.

All along the way, those tightening the noose around the neck of religious freedom have claimed to be allies all along.

That’s changing.  Now that they feel they have the upper hand, they no longer feel the need to be tolerant.

The City of San Antonio is making a move that would allow the city council to exclude from public office anyone who has “bias” that they don’t like. Here is the resolution:

“No person shall be appointed to a position if the city council finds that such person has, prior to such proposed appointment, engaged in discrimination or demonstrated a bias, by word or deed, against any person, group or organization on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran status, age, or disability.” 

That’s right, folks.  If you are a person who has “demonstrated a bias, by word or deed” against people based on things such as religion, sexual orientation and gender identity, you are unfit for public office.

Finish reading this article by FPIW director  here.

Why Is It So Difficult to Discuss Marriage?

As a forward to the 2006 book "The Meaning of Marriage", prominent ethicist Jean Bethke Elshtain, who passed away earlier this week, wrote this insightful piece on the marriage debate.

The Public Discourse:

One reason, of course, is that we all have a stake in the debate and its outcome. No one is left untouched by marriage, including those who never marry, because marriage is such a pervasive institution in our society. One recent estimate indicates that 88 percent of women and 82 percent of men will marry at some point.

Don't TalkGiven the importance of marriage as an institution for individuals and for society, the thoughtful citizen has every reason to expect, and even demand, a deep and thoughtful debate as the precondition for any change in how we understand marriage and encourage it to take shape. One need only reflect on previous alterations in the regulation of marriage in order to understand that changes in marriage law have consequences that intellectuals, politicians, and citizens alike should think through thoroughly before endorsing.

When one looks back on the debates that took place in the late 1960s and early 1970s over changing the divorce laws of this country—leading to the wide-scale institutionalization of no-fault divorce—there was much debate about the rights of women stuck in unhappy marriages. There were few serious discussions about what effects no-fault divorce would have on the institution of marriage; how social perception of marriage as a normative institution would subsequently change; how its purpose in society might be altered; what historical and philosophical roots anchored the movement; what effect widespread no-fault divorce might have on how we raise children and prepare them to become responsible citizens. Certainly people did not consider the negative impact no-fault divorce would have on women themselves!

But we have now learned that divorce is strongly associated with the immiseration of women: studies indicate, for example, that between one-fifth and one-third of women fall into poverty in the wake of a divorce. At the time, there were a few who argued that no-fault divorce would have significant social repercussions, but the ensuing highly-charged debate, again narrowly cast in terms of individual rights, muted their voices. Any opposition was construed as anti-feminist, despite the fact that many of the concerns expressed were precisely about the well-being of women who faced divorce.

...Responsible social scientists and political theorists always caution that major social change—and same-sex marriage involves something more basic than no-fault divorce—always trails negative unintended consequences in its wake. It follows that this recognition, for which there is a mountain of compelling evidence, should caution us to move with great care if we aim to alter the fundamental human institution that has always been the groundwork of social life.

"Legal Chaos" Ensues After Rogue Pennsylvania County Ignores Law, Issues Marriage Licenses

The inevitable outcome after state officials take it upon themselves to break their own laws:

Montgomery County PA“There is no limit to the administrative and legal chaos that is likely to flow from the clerk’s unlawful practice of issuing marriage licenses to those who are not permitted under Pennsylvania law to marry,” the [Pennsylvania Department of Health's legal] brief reads. “One consequence of the clerk’s illegal conduct in issuing invalid marriage licenses is likely to be this: Same-sex couples who falsely believe (or merely contend erroneously) that they are married will apply for claim benefits or other treatment (both public and private) that is reserved for those who are lawfully married under Pennsylvania law.”

The state has repeatedly contended that Register of Wills and Clerk of the Orphan’s Court D. Bruce Hanes violates the state marriage law every time he issues a marriage license to a same-sex couple.

“By his own acknowledgement, the clerk is repeatedly, continuously and notoriously acting in clear derogation of the marriage law inasmuch as he is issuing marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender,” the brief states. “The clerk’s actions are in direct defiance of the express policy of the commonwealth, that ‘marriage is between one man and one woman.’” -Daily Local News