Ryan T. Anderson who is the William E. Simon Fellow at the Heritage Foundation.  He is the co-author, along with Dr. Robert P. George and Sherif Girgis, of the book What is Marriage? Man & Woman: A Defense.  He gave a talk on the marriage debate from a public policy point of view at the Stanford Anscombe Society at Stanford University.  The video of his message and subsequent Q&A were just released this month.

Anderson in one exchange makes an excellent case for why the equal protection argument doesn’t work in the marriage debate.

During the question and answer period he was asked about the government’s interest in taxes and marriage by a self-proclaimed homosexual man.  This was an interesting exchange.  He asked Anderson, “Why should I not have the right to file a joint tax return?  Why should I pay more taxes than a straight couple simply because I’m a minority?  How is that not discrimination?”

Anderson replied, “That’s a fair question, what if were to say I wasn’t able to file a joint tax return because I am in a thruple or a quartet?  It seems to me what you’re suggesting is that we shouldn’t have the tax code recognize marriage.”

The gentleman in the audience shook his head no so Anderson responded, “No so you think we should have same-sex marriage for same-sex couples, but would you also extend marriage equality rights to the thruple?”

The audience member disagreed, and clarified his question, “My question is that why should I as a gay man be denied the same right to file a joint tax return with my potential husband that a straight couple has.”

Anderson responded, “I just want to play out what principle you are acting upon.  Because I would hope that you are not just doing special pleading – you want protection for your rights, but not for all Americans’ rights.  So I hope that you wouldn’t be saying that you want special tax treatment, but I don’t care about the thruple.  I want to see what principle you are acting on and does the principle that you are hoping to vindicate to protect your rights also are extended to protect the rights of the thruple.”

The gentleman in the audience clarified, “Sure I am acting on civil rights, so the rights that are applicable to male and female couples are applicable to a male and male couple, and that is my question.  How is that not discrimination based on my sexual orientation?”

Anderson replied, “Part of the answer is that a same-sex couple isn’t a marriage in that we want marriage equality to treat all marital relationships in the same way.  Given the presentation that I gave on what marriage is, a same-sex relationship isn’t marital.  But I’m trying to ask you about the equal protection argument you are making.  Would it apply to all consenting adult romantic relationships?  Why would you want the same sex couple to file jointly for taxes, but not the same sex thruple or the opposite sex quartet?”

The audience member responded, “Sure, sure I appreciate that, but that isn’t actually my question.  My question is why should I be denied the right to file…” (cross talk)

Anderson answered, “The reason you should not have the option in filing a joint tax return because you can’t get married.”

The gentleman responded, “But I can get married in California.”

Anderson stated, “You can be issued a marriage license in the state of California, but you can’t actually get married.  I’m sorry to say it that way, but given what marriage is….”

Audience member – “How is that not discrimination.”

Anderson, “It is not discrimination because everyone is equally eligible for entering into the marital relationship.  Where you understand marriage as a union of sexually complementary spouses, a permanent exclusive union of a man and a woman, a husband and wife.  Mother and father.  If you are not interested in entering into that sort of a union you are not being discriminated against.  What you’re asking us to do is redefine marriage to include the adult relationship of your choice, and the adult relationship of your choice happens to be a same sex couple.  There are other adults who want to have marriage redefined to include the relationship of their choice which may be the same sex thruple or the opposite sex quartet.  So what I am asking you in response is what principle are you appealing to when you say this is discrimination to vindicate your rights, but not their rights?  It seems to me that your position leads to simply the dissolvement of the marital union.”

The man replied, “I just heard, you do not have the right to get married.  If you can tell me why I don’t have the right to get married that would be my final question.”

Anderson wraps up, “It isn’t that you don’t have the right to get married, but you are not seeking out marriage.  Marriage is, by nature, a union of sexually-complementary spouses, man and woman, husband and wife, mother and father, and just based upon what you said about yourself it doesn’t sound like you are interested in forming that sort of a union.  It sounds like you are interested in forming a union with another man, and that is not a marriage.  So that is why I don’t think the law should treat the relationship that you want to form as a marriage.

You can watch the entire exchange below:

Anderson handled this exchange masterfully and showed why the equal protection argument logically does not work unless one wants to totally dissolve the marital union.  Everyone has the opportunity to enter into a marital union, but not everyone chooses to.  Same sex couples are not being discriminated against any more than the same sex thruple or opposite sex quartet.

It boils down to the central question what marriage is, and it is more than the romantic relationship of one’s choosing.

  1. Your logic fails. Your definition of marriage relies on your faith. Just because you deny it is a real marriage does not negate the law.
    Faith is believing something without evidence or facts.

    1. My wife is a stay at home mom, its a 6 am to 830 pm job. She’s not obsolete. Your definition of obsolete is clouded by your experiences and how you see the world.

      1. Unless you don’t own a washer and dryer or a microwave or any other modern appliance including refrigerator, your wife does not have to spend the time doing day to day chores like women of my grandmother’s age.

        She pumped all her needed water by hand and then had to heat it on the stove if required. There was no bathroom indoors. Their bathtub was a metal tub which was also what they used to wash their clothes. Imagine washing your clothes by hand today? All meals were cooked from scratch. Bread was made fresh daily because you didn’t waste your money on store bought bread.

      2. I understand your point, but housewives are more than just maids and cleaning ladies.

      3. But for those who do (and husbands as well, including those in same-sex marriages), it does work nicely.

      4. Thank you. The Left has such a horrible view of women. They want to change them all into men. They work day and night doing just that.

  2. Anderson doesn’t understand how legal equal protection works, which explains why his is a losing battle (however much money he is making in the meantime). The law looks are citizens as being “similarly situated” in reviewing claims of equal protection. It’s hard to argue that same-sex couples aren’t similarly situated, for the purposes of marriage, as different-sex couples: in committed relationships, raising children, shared resources, etc. As the courts have shown, access only to a different-sex marriage arrangement fails to meet the needs of the similarly situated same-sex couples, and without rational public purpose. Anderson’s “logic” also would let states forbid inter-racial marriage, since everyone would be prohibited equally from marrying someone outside his or her race. I doubt he’s comfortable with that assertion.

    In addition, same-sex marriage is not comparable to incestuous marriage or polygamous marriage, the two bogeymen used to smear same-sex marriage for people getting comfortable with the idea of same-sex marriage. It is one thing to deny a highly specific marital arrangement, such as “having more than one spouse” or “being married to one’s sibling”. It is quite another to deny someone a spouse at all, such as when same-sex marriage is prohibited.

  3. No amount of articles will change the fact that by the end of the decade gay marriage will be legal in all 50 states in the union…. and the world will keep spinning and the rapture will not come to make us pay for our collective sins.

  4. Conservative filmmaker James O’Keefe was supposedly the guy behind the ‘hidden’ video showing a Planned Parenthood employee talking to a 15 year old about BDSM, which I believe was shown on this site. It appears he made it all up using actors to play the parts. He recently got busted when an environmentalist he was doing a hit piece on actually recorded the phone conversation that O’Keefe had so carefully edited in his recent video of ‘corruption and hypocrisy’.

    Why do social conservatives like Mr. O’Keefe, who claim moral superiority, always seem to resort to lies and deceit to get their point across?

  5. Same-sex couples can get married in 19 states and the District of Columbia, and that’s just within the United States. While it may not match Ryan Anderson’s definition of marriage, it does match the states’.

    Is Ryan now arguing for thruples and quartets?

Comments are closed.

Get CT In Your Inbox!

Don't miss a single update.

You May Also Like

Jennifer Knapp’s Coming Out

My heart was heavy this evening when I read an article at…

Dangers of Rudeness

We had a situation arise working today at Sam’s Club that got…

Graham: Trivial Issues Distract from the Change Needed in Light of the Floyd Killing

Adam Graham: Real leadership would bring Americans together around common-sense reforms addressing the problems raised by the death of George Floyd.

Keeping Gender-Confused Boys Out of Girls Locker Rooms is Bigotry?

Girls who want to keep gender-confused boys out of their bathrooms and lockers rooms have a reasonable expectation to privacy which is not bigotry.