Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Inevitability is Myth, Not Reality
A recent AP-GfK Poll on same-sex marriage presents to us a very different picture of this issue in America than what the elites in the liberal media, academia, government and especially Hollywood would have us believe.
When asked which way the United States Supreme Court should rule on its upcoming same-sex marriage cases, the country seems to be evenly divided, 48 to 48.
Wait. I thought “everyone” supported same-sex marriage. Don’t “they” tell us that only a fringe group holds on to the old idea that marriage is between one man and one woman before God in a commitment for life?
Yes, but no. The same-sex marriage inevitability myth is just that, a fantasy. It is just a tool the elite use to try to discourage supporters of marriage and win the argument by default. Even when the question of support for same-sex marriage was asked apart from the Supreme Court case, not even half, only 44 percent, support it. Thirty nine opposed it, and 15 percent stayed neutral.
That is hardly an “inevitability” picture. It is certainly a very different picture than what they show us on television and the laws that liberal politicians continue to ram through our legislatures.
While liberal politicians continue to make LGBT rights their number one priority, the country is calling for a very different approach to this issue. Fifty seven percent want religious people who offer wedding services to be able to follow their conscience and not participate in same-sex weddings. Even for people who issue wedding licenses, 50 percent believe those who have religious objections should be allowed to follow their conscience and not issue those licenses. Forty six opposed.
So, while the country is evenly split on the question of the legalization of same-sex marriage, it is clear that it supports the protection of the religious liberty of those who have a moral/religious objection to same-sex marriage.
The Supreme Court should take note. In the past, the Court, whether rightfully or wrongly (very wrongly in my opinion), seems to have looked at American public opinion to decide whether or not it is time to move on a certain issue. This is the result of a view of our Constitution (a very wrongheaded view in my opinion) as a living, breathing document that changes with the times. For liberal Justices, as public opinion “evolves,” so does our Constitution.
Well, even someone subscribing to this poor view of our founding documents should realize that we are certainly nowhere near a sort of overwhelming support—one that should warrant such a drastic assault on our Constitution that would read into it a right to same-sex “marriage.”
Liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has said repeatedly that she thought the Court went “too far, too fast,” in the case of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that read into the Constitution a right to abortion. She has said that she believes the Court helped magnify the divide in the country instead of aiding in any way, so that we have the sort of debates today that they thought would be a distant memory by now.
Well, Roe will be consider nothing compared to what the Court will be unleashing if they decide to read into the Constitution a right to same-sex “marriage.” A Roe of marriage will be catastrophic for the country. Mainly because of what we have seen in the poll we are discussing. The “right” of same-sex marriage is on a collision course with our God-given right to religious liberty, and there seems to be no way around it.
The LGBT community has shown absolutely no willingness to respect the freedom of conscience; this means that the attacks on people of faith resulting from a Supreme Court overreach would unleash an assault that could spell the beginning of the end of freedom and liberty in America.
May God save the United States and [the] Honorable Court” as they consider this issue in the coming months.
Top 6 on BarbWire.com
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.