The shocking murder of college campus influencer Charlie Kirk last week left many reflecting on his influence and legacy. Kirk was uncompromising on marriage being between one man and one woman. He repeated this in campus exchanges across the US.
However, he always showed respect to those with whom he disagreed. He was clear that he had no ‘hate in his heart’ for anybody, including those with same-sex attraction.
This raises a sharper question. Can real marriage supporters treat those who experience same-sex attraction with dignity and respect while still holding firm to real marriage? The answer is not only yes we can, but yes we must. C4M has supporters who experience same-sex attraction yet affirm that marriage describes what only one man and one woman can do. The UK recognised this distinction through civil partnerships, which granted equal legal rights while reserving marriage for its unique social and biological meaning.
The state may permit many arrangements in a liberal democracy. Churches and faith groups will rightly hold their own views. But government and media should promote what the evidence shows brings the best outcomes for the greatest number, i.e. real marriage. Research consistently demonstrates that married families are more stable and that children raised by married parents have better outcomes. It’s not marginal.
Charlie Kirk’s voice may yet reach more people after his untimely death than during his short life. But part of his legacy must surely be to remind us to engage respectfully with those who we disagree with, seeking to persuade with civility – yet never compromising the foundations of real marriage.
The question remains for social conservatives on both sides of the Atlantic, will they hold the line on marriage, or will they trade it for a fragile consensus? At C4M, the answer is clear. Real marriage is not one option among many. It is the foundation stone for strong families and flourishing societies.
And everyone is welcome to agree on that.