The Court is poised to redefine marriage, not just permissively, but quite possibly in essence, potentially by the end of June. By that I mean, it will not only be allowable for a state to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, as was established previously—but it could be decreed that no state may define marriage in any way that restricts marriage in accordance with the traditional understanding, as that understanding is based solely on prejudice. (If the questions of the Justices are any bellwether, it may even be a Constitutional right for two men and two women lawyers to marry each other—one wonders why the Court seemed so intrigued by that idea, but that’s for another time.)
If the Court finds that the Constitution demands an unrestrictive definition of marriage, that’s ballgame, fellow Christians. Every one of us will have to decide where our loyalties lie: with God, or with man.
It will not be permissible to object to this new Constitutional right, nor to express one’s disapprobation—however genteel—for the coupling it protects. Given our societal penchant for speech restriction, it will no doubt be anathema to teach anything resembling a Biblical worldview on the subject, in any school that may have an entanglement with government. Already, religious organizations are fighting the Administration in Court for their rights to hire only those who agree with them, and to fire those whose personal conduct repudiates the moral teachings of the institution. So far, the religious liberty interests of those organizations are winning—but create a new unassailable Constitutional right, and a religious doctrine that denies it becomes socially, politically, culturally—and, inevitably, economically—outcast.
Politically, the Cold War between marriage protection and marriage equality is over. This case is our Cuban Missile Crisis, and we need to move to DefCon One immediately. We have seen activists seek not to merely have a place at the table or peacefully coexist, but to upend the tables and run Christians out of business for having socially unapproved attitudes and theologies. It is time to gather our allies and stand our ground.
It is time to refocus the Republican Party.
Generally speaking, the Democratic Party is a lost cause. They have been pushing for the “right” of the one percent of Americans in same-sex relationships to get married since they first smelled blood in the water in 2003–when one Massachusetts judge broke the tie to legalize gay marriage in that state. (Fun fact: the lawyer that argued the case last week was the same one who argued successfully to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.) While a third of Democrats do oppose same-sex marriage, as a party, the Democratic Party is not the vehicle for reviving marriage and the family. Thus, it falls to the GOP to be the champion of traditional marriage.
They should run with it. Here’s why:
Thirty million Americans, when given the opportunity to voice an opinion, in more than thirty states, voted to reserve the definition of “marriage” for one man and one woman. Over the past few years, as the media, the culture, and the political and academic elites pushed incessantly, those people saw their votes flushed down the memory hole of the Court system, as one federal judge after another overturned the will of the people to allow homosexuals to marry, even when the people, the legislatures, and the governors objected. For these judges, the democratic process meant nothing, despite the fact that the numbers, when there was a vote, were overwhelming. From conservative Mississippi’s 2004 vote of 86% to far-left California’s 52% vote in 2008, the people of the states made their positions clear.
And none of it mattered.
The Democratic Party abandoned part of its core constituency in order to embrace another part that practices what the first part thinks is an abomination. Only 39% of African-Americans support same-sex marriage. Though now a majority, only 53% of Hispanics do (a potentially movable number). Moreover, the vast majority of people that Democrats plan to bring in and make citizens before the 2016 elections are staunchly opposed to gay marriage.
At the Marriage March last weekend, one could hardly miss the intense diversity of those present. All races, both genders, many languages. The only elected official that spoke was a New York Democrat who invoked Jesus with passion, and revved up the crowd in both English and Spanish. This is a winning issue, and one for which the silent majority that fear to tell the truth when the pollsters come around are thirsting for a champion. (No idea why they’re shy. “Hi, Memories Pizza, I’m taking a survey. This’ll only take a few minutes…”)
Although a majority of Americans (not necessarily a majority of voters) allegedly favor same-sex marriage, that may well change with this court case. Catholic and Evangelical leaders have already pre-emptively pledged to refuse to obey any directive forcing them to accept or celebrate same-sex marriage, and Christian colleges are scrambling to build a defense in case the government’s lawyer’s veiled threat to take away the tax exemption of schools that resist the new order becomes reality.
If the Republican Party abandons marriage, it will lose—politically, as well as morally. If it stands with the people who, with their votes, have overwhelmingly voiced their intent to defend marriage, it will win. Resoundingly.
This is a Tea Party with teeth.