Short answer: no. But you might want to know what this is about. And who has said of whom that gay marriage would allow that category an authentic life. First is a quote from Quiverfull:
In the fall of 2007, my husband of almost ten years told me that he was gay and that he wanted a divorce. In an instant, the world that I had known and loved—the life we had built together—was shattered.
This quote is inside a post by Libby Anne. Here is her comment (link to full post below):
I realize this is very serious subject matter, but Darnelle seems unaware that if LGBTQ individuals had equal rights and full social acceptance, she would not have been put in this situation. Her family was torn apart not as a result of her now ex-husband’s “decision to identify as a gay man” but rather because he, a gay man, felt he had to hide who he was.
Oh, it is only because SOCIETY has INEQUALITIES that he felt he had to hide, is it?
I think not. Even in the most brazenly gay friendly societies, like pre-Flood, like Sodom and Gomorrah before God destroyed them in fire and brimstone, like Corinth at certain times, a man may have had a feeling that it was shameful to prefer men, and a woman might have had a feeling that it was shameful to prefer women. The gay friendly attitude was of course intent on destroying that feeling, but it could never quite do it. If the men in Sodom had had no such feeling, why were they so angry at Lot for not approving of their lifestyle? If they were furious enough to want a gang rape in the first place, and Lot was certainly not a great hero in not approving of it, then we can be sure that one of the gay friendliest societies in history had a very deep feeling of shame about homosexuality.
If he had been able to accept himself and come out earlier, he would not have married her, leaving her free to marry a straight man who could love her more fully.
Here it is presumed that homosexuals are naturally able to accept themselves and only a gay oppressive society stops them.
It is also presumed the one conclusion he could practically have drawn about coming out was to get together with a man and leave women alone. That is also not so. If he had come out earlier, he could have drawn the conclusion of Josh Weed, of marrying a woman who was able to cope with his being gay.
It is most of all presumed that if he was gay after ten years of marriage, he must have been so to start with. Nothing like any wife ever in history driving her husband to that. AND nothing like any conditions outside marriage (at work, in therapy, two situations that come to mind) ever degrading the heterosexuality of a man either. He need not have been gay when he married her. He could even, stranger things have happened, become gay by membership of some curious cult like a Masonic Lodge.
Now, Libby Anne makes a good point, though, or nearly so:
It is clear that Darnelle does not approve of how her ex-husband is raising her children, and is dismayed by the fact that she cannot control what her children are exposed to. This must be painful for her, but it strikes me that at its core this isn’t really about gay marriage. It’s about divorce.
It would be a good point for real if she had been content to say it is about divorce. That is a thing devastating enough as it is, even without gay marriage. Actually, the woman she quotes, Darnelle, makes the same point. In a passage not quoted by Libby Anne:
If my husband had chosen to stay, I know that things wouldn’t have been easy. But that is what marriage is about: making a vow and choosing to live it out, day after day. In sickness and in health, in good times and in bad, spouses must choose to put the other person first, loving them even when it’s hard.
A good marriage doesn’t only depend on sexual desire, which can come and go and is often out of our control. It depends on choosing to love, honor, and be faithful to one person, forsaking all others. It is common for spouses to be attracted to other people—usually of the opposite sex, but sometimes of the same sex. Spouses who value their marriage do not act on those impulses.
Link also below. Now, the point Janna Darnelle is making is that gay marriage is so often built on divorce cases. Libby Anne has an optimistic response to that (without mentioning what she is trying to refute directly):
The problem is that many people view being gay as disordered, and would rather force a gay person to leading a straight life and thus living a lie than allow them to live authentically. The result is that there are gay individuals who marry members of the opposite sex, and as the climate changes and being gay becomes more acceptable they regret it and in some cases (such as that of Darnelle’s husband) leave the lie they are living for a new life. Is this process painful? I can’t see how it could not be. However, the growing acceptance of marriage equality and LGBTQ rights should mean this will happen less and less.
In other words, this is not so much a story of how gay marriage destroyed a family as a story of how LGBTQ acceptance moved to slowly to prevent the destruction of a family.
The story Janna Darnelle told is precisely of how gay marriage destroyed, via divorce, a family.
Saying it is even more so a story of how LGBTQ acceptance is slowly preventing destructions of families is claiming to know the future outcome. Libby Anne doesn't. But she is an Evolutionist and to Evolutionists "most evolved" is one of the false definitions of God (confer Christianity in which God is the Highest Good, not because He evolved that way, but because all other good is created by Him). And the future, in their presumption, is supposed to be "more evolved" than the present. So Evolutionists WILL presume they know future outcomes even if they do not.
So far it is a story of a marriage destroyed, that of Janna Darnelle. That is, unlike speculations about the future impact of LGBTQ acceptance, a known fact.
Is it likely that the friends of Libby Anne will at least leave heterosexuals as free as we were before?
For one thing, the story means that in cases where a divorce court hands custody to the gay divorcing man, the children and the woman who remains heterosexual have less freedom. I have a hard time imagining the children would have been really fine with the new man in their father's life.
But at least the heterosexuals not involved in divorce, not involved with a homosexual in their life, they are all as free as before?
Not quite, after my experience. When I was a teen, I was impopular in a class part atheist, part nominally Christian, for being Christian, Creationist, Pro-Life, Medievalist and Right Wing. I was harrassed as a homosexual even though I was not. My harrassers, as far as I know were never punished. I was given a short relief of homeschooling in grade 8, then a choice between two not ideal schools for grade 9. I took the boarding school over the school for mentally handicapped. At the boarding school I was also harrassed as a homosexual - and more directly for my "real faults" in the eyes of the atheists.
There also my harrassers were never legally punished.
There also people could get away with saying they were only helping me to adapt. Perhaps it was already then, perhaps only much later when I was a teacher that people tried to stamp me as a homosexual who needed coming out and as a preliminary needed to get away from a Christian faith not permitting me to do so. And close to twenty years later after that other school where I was a teacher (and unsuccessful due to the intrigue I just described) there are seemingly still people who think of me as a homosexual who needs coming out. And others, less homoliberal, who think of me as a homosexual who needs to be cured. Taken together, they keep girls away from me, excepting girls whose non-Christianity makes them ineligible as wives, and they keep me too harrassed (like by sleep privations or like by fudging about my internet connexions in the libraries) to make me a charming witty man who can easily circumvene there harrassments by attracting whom I want while they are not watching.
My life has been basically ruined by people who think that I need a coming out and that I need for that purpose to get away from Christianity. Some have said I left Sweden because of homophobia there. While it exists, it is more like homohysteria which ruins me, and homoliberalism is not helping against homohysteria, quite the contrary. And as said, it is a homoliberal clique which is ruining my life. Along with those believing their words - for instance when they have "authority" as policemen (I have done time in Sweden) or as psychologists or as even pastors of non-Catholic sects.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
Sts Cyprian Martyr and
St Justina, Virgin and Martyr
Love, Joy, Feminism : Has Gay Marriage Harmed this Writer and Her Children?
September 23, 2014 by Libby Anne
Breaking the Silence: Redefining Marriage Hurts Women Like Me - and Our Children
by Janna Darnelle September 22nd, 2014
Public Discourse/Witherspoon Institute