WASHINGTON — Gay marriage proponents will not allow
for religious freedom of their political opponents because their belief system
does not allow for the fact that dissenters can be reasonable people of
goodwill, Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton
University, argued at the Institute on Religion and Democracy's 2014 Diane
Knippers Memorial Lecture.
Most of those arguing in favor of redefining marriage
to include same-sex couples do not understand, or even know, the arguments of
those who oppose the redefinition of marriage, George claimed. They assume there
are no reasonable arguments against gay marriage and those who oppose it are
simply driven by hatred of gays.
Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, delivering the Institute on Religion and Democracy's 2014 Diane Knippers Memorial Lecture, Washington, D.C., October 16, 2014.
Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, delivering the Institute on Religion and Democracy's 2014 Diane Knippers Memorial Lecture, Washington, D.C., October 16, 2014.
"The whole [gay marriage] argument was and is that the
idea of marriage as the union of husband and wife lacks a rational basis and
amounts to nothing more than 'bigotry,' reflecting animus against a certain
group of people," he said. "Therefore, no reasonable person of goodwill, we are
told, can dissent from the liberal position on sex and marriage, any more than a
reasonable person of goodwill could support racial segregation and
subordination. You've heard the analogy drawn a thousand times. And this is
because marriage, according to the re-definers, consists principally of
companionship — the companionship of people committed to mutual affection and
care. Any distinctions beyond this one they condemn as
baseless."
