In a video being promoted by social
conservatives, Ryan T. Anderson of the conservative Heritage
Foundation explained that allowing gay couples to marry would make
marriage disappear.
In the 4-minute-25-second clip from a
Stanford University event, Anderson is asked by an audience member
why he should not be able to file a joint tax return if he legally
marries his same-sex partner.
“The reason that you should not have
the option of filing a joint tax return is that you can't get
married, given what marriage is,” Anderson said.
“But I could in California,” he
responded.
“You can be issued a marriage license
in the state of California, but you can't actually get married. And
I'm sorry to say it that way, but given what marriage is, a union of
sexually complementary ...”
“How is that not discrimination?”
he asked.
“It's not discrimination,” Anderson
answered, “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 man
and a woman, husband and wife, mother and father. If you’re not
interested in entering into that sort of a union, you’re not being
discriminated against.”
“What you’re asking us to do is to
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 throuple or the opposite-sex quartet. So what I’m 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?
Because it seems to me that your position ultimately leaves to
simply the dissolvement of the marital union.”
“It’s not that you don’t have a
right to get married, it’s that you aren’t seeking out marriage.
Marriage is by nature a union of sexually complementary spouses, a
union of man and woman, husband and wife, mother and father. And
based on just what you’ve said about yourself, it doesn’t sound
like you’re interested in forming that sort of a union. It sounds
like you’re interested in forming a union with another man, and
that’s not a marriage. So that’s why I don’t think the law
should treat the relationship that you want to form as a marriage.”
(The video is embedded on this page. Visit
our video library for more videos.)
In promoting the video, the National
Organization for Marriage (NOM) called Anderson's response
“charitable.”
Writing
at Right Wing Watch, Miranda Blue interpreted Anderson as saying
that “even legal, state-sanctioned marriages don't count because
they violate his view of what marriage is, and therefore should not
earn legal, state-sanctioned benefits.”