The problem for those who assert biblical authority in support of traditional definitions of marriage is that... — Jon Meacham

The problem for those who assert biblical authority in support of traditional definitions of marriage is that one could, with equal validity, assert that the lending of money or certain kinds of haircuts are forbidden by God, or that slavery and the subjugation of women are authorized by the Lord.

Author: Jon Meacham

Insight: When we pick and choose which ancient rules still apply today, we're already making a choice—we're just not always honest about it. Every religious tradition faces this: the Bible has plenty of passages that almost nobody actually follows anymore. We don't stone people for working on Sundays, we don't treat women as property, and most of us have no problem with haircuts or lending money. So the real question isn't whether the Bible says something, but why we've decided some prohibitions matter while others don't. This matters because it reveals something uncomfortable: we're using our current values to decide which old rules deserve respect, then turning around and claiming those old rules determine our values. It's backward reasoning dressed up as tradition. When someone argues that marriage must follow "biblical definitions," they're making a judgment call about which parts of biblical law still bind us—just like everyone else does. The difference is whether we admit we're making that judgment at all. The hard truth is that consistency is almost impossible here. We can't honestly say the Bible is our ultimate authority on one issue while casually ignoring it on dozens of others. We have to own that we're filtering ancient wisdom through modern understanding, informed by modern ethics. That's not weakness—it's actually more honest than pretending we're simply following rules that were never really followed uniformly to begin with.