Yesterday The Federalist published a column by Jennifer Johnson of the Ruth Institute regarding the conflicting goals of same-sex marriage advocates.

Johnson writes,

“Some who support same-sex marriage argue it will strengthen the family. For example, President Obama said this on June 26, 2015 regarding the SCOTUS ruling that made same-sex marriage legal across the United States: ‘This ruling will strengthen all of our communities by offering to all loving same-sex couples the dignity of marriage across this great land… It’s a victory for their children, whose families will now be recognized as equal to any other.'”

In contrast, Johnson notes, other proponents of same-sex marriage have cited very different goals, including Masha Gessen, who said in 2012,

“Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist.”

Johnson asks a very appropriate question: Which supporter of same-sex marriage is correct? She goes on to cite evidence that Gessen’s view is the correct one: Same-sex marriage ultimately leads to the destruction of marriage.

Again she writes,

“In response to a lesbian marriage and custody dispute, California enacted a bill that allows a child to have more than two legal parents. Gessen correctly argued that man-woman marriage is not compatible with her desire for an unlimited number of legal parents for children. Same-sex marriage has accomplished this goal in California. The state of Alabama tried to abolish marriage licenses as a response to same-sex marriage. Gessen wants to abolish marriage, and abolishing marriage licenses is a step towards abolishing marriage.”

You can read Johnson’s entire column on redefining marriage and its impact on children here.