Is March Toward Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Inevitable?
In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision on Monday not to rule on seven cases pertaining to the redefinition of marriage, gay activists and their allies are proclaiming that victory on a national level is now within sight. But while it does seem that same-sex “marriage” is about to be recognized on a national level, that is hardly the end of the story.
According to the Charlotte Observer, “what happened Monday was just one more large, quiet step in the inexorable march toward equality. By declining seven petitions, the justices essentially made same-sex marriage legal in 11 more states – five immediately, and six soon after, including both Carolinas. That makes 30 states – up from zero just over a decade ago – where two consenting adults who love each other can be treated with dignity, and volunteer for deep commitments and obligations, regardless of their gender.” (See my response to this editorial, which was marked by ridicule and disdain for people of faith and conservative moral values.)
This echoes what is being proclaimed throughout the nation: Same-sex “marriage” is inevitable – in fact, it has been inevitable for some time now – so those who oppose it better wise up and throw in the towel.
But why would we do that? If we are convinced that same-sex “marriage” is not marriage, no matter how committed the same-sex couples may be, if we know that two men or two women can never truly be married in God’s sight, if we are sure that redefining marriage is not in the best interest of society, why would we throw in the towel?
Jeff Jacoby, who holds the distinction of being a conservative columnist for the very liberal Boston Globe, gave a helpful historical perspective. “History,” he noted, “is littered with causes and beliefs that were thought at one point to be historically unstoppable, from the divine right of kings to worldwide Marxist revolution. In the relative blink of an eye, same-sex marriage has made extraordinary political and psychological gains. It is on a roll, winning hearts and minds as well as court cases. No wonder it seems to so many that history’s verdict is in, and same-sex marriage is here to stay.”
But appearances can be deceiving, and history is often fickle.
Could it be that we are in the midst of a massive, unprecedented social experiment, and when the dust settles, be it in this generation or the next, same-sex “marriage” will be no more?
Of course, many followers of Jesus believe that we are in the last seconds of the last days, and so they see the decaying moral state of the society as yet another sign that the Second Coming is near. In that case, we don’t need to worry about future generations, since our generation is the last generation and this editorial is moot.
But since no one knows the day or hour of the Lord’s return, and since we are called to have a multi-generational vision, we need to look beyond the current string of victories for the redefinition of marriage and we need to plant our feet firmly in godly conviction, making a determination to take a stand for the long haul.
After all, gay activists didn’t throw in the towel when the very concept of same-sex “marriage” seemed completely foreign to the nation, nor did they throw in the towel when 31 states voted against redefining marriage, with many of those states enshrining the ban on redefining marriage in their very constitution.
How could they? For them, this was not some abstract philosophical battle; this was about their very lives.
Why, then, would we throw in the towel if we are convinced we are doing what is right and what is good in the sight of God and man? When has anything of lasting value been accomplished without temporary setbacks and discouraging moments?
Writing one week ago, Ben Johnson of LifeSiteNews.com, noted that, “Among the stratagems employed by the cultural Left to discourage, dispirit, and dissuade the plurality of culturally sane Americans from opposing same-sex ‘marriage’ is the all-encompassing insistence that the fight has already been lost. The phrase of choice has been to say that proponents of traditional marriage are on ‘the wrong side of history.’”
But, he continued, “With at least 5,000 years of Western civilization normalizing monogamous heterosexual marriage, and the American experiment with redefining marriage a mere 10 years old, it certainly seems like I’m on the right side of history – the long one … the one authenticated by every society that produced human flourishing.”
Brian Camenker has documented the negative effects of same-sex “marriage” in his home state of Massachusetts, in particular on children, while others on the “marriage equality for all” bandwagon are arguing for the legal recognition of polygamy, polyamory and consensual adult incest.
One website advocates for “the right of consenting adults to share and enjoy love, sex, residence, and marriage without limits on the gender, number, or relation of participants. Full marriage equality is a basic human right.”
How far will this go before people begin to realize that there’s more to “marriage equality” than they realized and that once you fundamentally redefine marriage, you render it virtually meaningless?
I’m making no predictions about what will happen next with the legalization of same-sex “marriage.”
I’m simply stating the obvious: The current tidal wave of success in the march toward same-sex “marriage” is one short chapter in a very long book.
And so, rather than lose heart, we take heart, determined to honor God and do what is right regardless of temporary setbacks and with a long-term, multi-generational vision.
Remember: Roe v. Wade was not the end of the pro-life movement but, in many ways, the movement’s real beginning.
(I am addressing these themes in my next book, due out sometime next year. Stay tuned for more details.)
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.