Matt Walsh is Anti-Adoption

OK let’s start with this. I seriously doubt Matt Walsh is anti-adoption. He said some things earlier this week that made me feel like he must be (more on that later…) but I would be shocked to learn that those are his views. The title is simply irony used for shock value- a writing technique that’s a favorite of Mr. Walsh himself. (Recent titles include “But seriously why is polygamy still illegal,” and “I am a racist.”)

For those of you unfamiliar with Matt Walsh, he’s a radio DJ and blogger whose sarcastic style and conservative Christian views have earned him hundreds of thousands of fans. Some of his more popular posts get millions of hits in the first day. I learned about Matt through one such popular post- one concerning motherhood. And while I disagree with the vast majority of what he says I continue to read almost daily for three important reasons. First, I occasionally agree with him. Second, I find some of his views interesting even if I happen to disagree. And third, I want to make sure I’m not being brainwashed by the neo-liberal thought police Matt warns us about. (That’s the only reason I could possibly be a Christian liberal, right? Brainwashing? It’s not possible that a well-educated person like myself could have facts, know Jesus, AND still be a liberal, right? RIGHT???) Really though, as much as Matt would hate to accept it, lots of liberals read opinions from both sides. I am one such liberal, and he is one such representation of what is generally the other side.

So I found myself reading the Matt Walsh blog on Tuesday. The title of the post was one already mentioned above, “But seriously why is polygamy still illegal.” It was an unsurprising attack on gay marriage. As a conservative Christian, I get that Matt is not going to be in favor of granting marriage rights to same-sex couples. I get that. But I was interested in his “where do you draw the line?” argument. At least it wasn’t the “next people will be able to marry dogs” argument. (Hint: dogs can’t give consent.) For me the line is clearly drawn: two adult humans committing to spend their lives with each other. As partners. If more than two people are involved it isn’t the same kind of commitment. So marriage, to me, is two adult humans committing to spend their lives together.

But Matt Walsh defines it differently. He states that marriage is “the foundation for the procreative union between a man and a woman.”

And that’s when the needle slid across the record in my brain.

Here’s a picture of my family.


This past Monday- the day before Matt gave us the definitive answer for what marriage should be- my husband and I celebrated thirteen years of marriage. For the past four years we have added “Mommy and Daddy” to our list of roles. For those of you unfamiliar with the basics of genetics, I have a secret. We did not create that child. She is ours. But we did not create her.

According to Matt Walsh, our marriage is a sham. Because sadly, our union has not been procreative.

When I say sadly, I assure you that I mean sadly. Any regular readers know how much I mean that. I wrote a whole book about just how sad it was. Still is, really. While I don’t question God’s plan that our daughter was always going to be OUR DAUGHTER regardless of the womb in which she was carried, I do wish we could procreate. It just wasn’t in God’s plan for us.

So I guess God doesn’t recognize our marriage under the Matt Walsh Rules of Being Married. That makes me sad. And a little confused.

(Before I continue, I saw someone arguing in the comments section of Matt’s Facebook page that a couple wouldn’t KNOW that they were infertile before they got married. First of all, seriously dude? Second, injury, age, illness… Those are all issues that could tell a couple for certain that conceiving was not in their future. And third, seriously dude? Like, for real?)

Now obviously Matt Walsh does not think my marriage- my happy, Christ-centered, family-oriented, healthy, church-going marriage- is invalid due to infertility. He seems like a nice enough guy in many respects. And he seems to believe in what the Bible says. And the Bible encourages adoption. So we can assume that Matt Walsh is pro-adoption. (especially considering his views on abortion.)

But wait.

Matt likes to do this thing where we either believe in something whole-heartedly, or we don’t. He is an all-or-nothing kind of guy. And he asks tough, all-or-nothing, either-this-is-true-or-it-isn’t questions of his readers nearly every day.


Marriage is the foundation for the procreative union between a man and a woman.

Or it’s not.

So is it, Matt? Do you stand by your definition?

I assume it has to be a man and a woman because otherwise it can’t be procreative.

And if it’s a man and a woman but they can’t be procreative, well we understand. They can still be married. As long as it’s a man and a woman.

Because if it’s two men or two women, they can’t make babies.

And God wouldn’t want people to be married if they can’t make babies.

Wait, no. I didn’t mean that. Now I’m all flustered.

It’s not because of the babies thing. Obviously you can still be married even if you can’t procreate.

OK. So let’s adjust it.

Marriage is the foundation for the union between a man and a woman. And it has to be between a man and a woman- not because of
the procreate thing, but because, well, that’s what marriage is.

Look. Matt Walsh can feel however he likes about gay marriage. He can blog about it and rally the troops and fight the law if he likes. But
when he tries to argue that homosexual marriage is wrong, his only reasoning is circular logic.

Either “it’s wrong because it’s wrong,” or “your marriage should only count if you can have babies.”

Matt, I think your opinion is pretty clear. It’s wrong because it’s wrong. Fine. But don’t try to sway the masses with arguments that don’t hold any water.

%d bloggers like this: