"It is statistically proven that the strongest institution that guarantees procreation and continuity of the generations is marriage between one man and one woman. We don't want genocide. We don't want to destroy the sacred institution of marriage"
About this Quote
The line dresses culture-war theology in the lab coat of social science, then raises the stakes to apocalyptic levels. By opening with "statistically proven", Alveda King borrows the authority of numbers to frame a moral claim as a neutral fact, a move designed to preempt debate: if it is proven, dissent becomes irrational, even reckless. The phrase "strongest institution" also smuggles in a hierarchy. Marriage isn’t just one workable arrangement among many; it is positioned as the single load-bearing beam holding up civilization.
The subtext is a familiar conservative syllogism: heterosexual marriage produces children; children produce a future; therefore challenging heterosexual marriage threatens the future. That’s why the argument pivots so quickly from procreation to "continuity of the generations", language that suggests demographic panic more than family policy. It’s not really about individual households; it’s about who counts as the legitimate engine of society.
Then comes the rhetorical tripwire: "We don't want genocide". That word is less a description than a moral weapon. It converts disagreement over marriage equality into complicity with mass death, casting opponents not as fellow citizens with different values but as existential threats. Coupled with "sacred institution", it fuses religious reverence with national survival, inviting listeners to treat political resistance as spiritual duty.
Context matters: King speaks as a clergyperson and as a prominent conservative voice who often invokes the legacy and name recognition of the King family. The effect is to launder a contemporary anti-LGBTQ political project through the language of civil rights and communal protection, reframing restriction as rescue.
The subtext is a familiar conservative syllogism: heterosexual marriage produces children; children produce a future; therefore challenging heterosexual marriage threatens the future. That’s why the argument pivots so quickly from procreation to "continuity of the generations", language that suggests demographic panic more than family policy. It’s not really about individual households; it’s about who counts as the legitimate engine of society.
Then comes the rhetorical tripwire: "We don't want genocide". That word is less a description than a moral weapon. It converts disagreement over marriage equality into complicity with mass death, casting opponents not as fellow citizens with different values but as existential threats. Coupled with "sacred institution", it fuses religious reverence with national survival, inviting listeners to treat political resistance as spiritual duty.
Context matters: King speaks as a clergyperson and as a prominent conservative voice who often invokes the legacy and name recognition of the King family. The effect is to launder a contemporary anti-LGBTQ political project through the language of civil rights and communal protection, reframing restriction as rescue.
Quote Details
| Topic | Marriage |
|---|
More Quotes by Alveda
Add to List



