Published July 8, 2026
Keep it gay. That’s the plea of Matthew Vines, author of God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships. Vines recently warned New York Times readers that “the broad support that made marriage equality possible has grown more vulnerable,” which he blames on those who want “same-sex orientation” to be “part of a wider rebellion against social norms.” And this “queerness” is provoking backlash.
Andrew Sullivan made a similar argument in the same paper a year ago, lamenting that the gay-rights movement had radicalized after winning on marriage. Sullivan and Vines are correct that same-sex marriage won by promising a more inclusive normal and has instead delivered sexual and gender radicalism, a bait-and-switch that is turning people against same-sex marriage.
This slide down the slippery slope was inevitable because same-sex marriage was always a radical project, as Vines inadvertently demonstrated in his essay. The most immediate evidence is that he avoided offering any specific examples of how the rainbow movement has gone too far. He worries about vibes, and about backlash, but did not condemn anything wrought by the LGBTQ movement as actually wrong in itself. Surely he could have written that polyamory is wrong, or that amputating the healthy breasts of adolescent girls is wicked, or that male rapists don’t belong in women’s prisons—if he believed so.
Click here to continue reading.
Nathanael Blake, Ph.D. is a Fellow in the Life and Family Initiative at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. His first book, Victims of the Revolution: How Sexual Liberation Hurts Us All, was published by Ignatius Press in Spring 2025. As a cultural commentator, Dr. Blake has published hundreds of articles at outlets including Public Discourse, World Opinions, The Federalist, Catholic World Report, and the University Bookman.
