Two months from now, the Supreme Court almost assuredly is going to rule that people in same-sex relationships have a constitutional right to marry each other. And just as assuredly, the Constitution – as written – guarantees no such right. But we’re long past the time when judges believed it was their job to interpret the Constitution as written.
The justices no doubt hope their decision will put the contentious same-sex marriage issue to rest. As happened with Roe v. Wade, however, their decision is more likely to trigger even greater conflict instead. Given that same-sex marriage advocates have been successful in framing same-sex marriage as a civil rights issue instead of the public policy issue that it actually is, the conflict could get ugly indeed.
We’re constantly reminded that public opinion has been shifting in favor of same-sex marriage, and so it has. But this shift has not come about because of a thoughtful weighing of the pros and cons or a thorough investigation of government’s historical role in regulating marriage. The shift has come about in large part due to a relentless propaganda campaign that has been waged in the entertainment media, the news media, and in academia.
The purpose of this propaganda campaign has been two-fold: to convince Americans that sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic just like race such that any disapproval of homosexual behavior could arise from nothing more than bigotry or unfounded animus and that same-sex marriage is just like heterosexual marriage except, if anything, even better.
This clever bit of legerdemain – assisted by a scorched earth policy of publicly vilifying and threatening anyone with an opposing viewpoint, demanding that they lose their jobs, and destroying their businesses through lawsuits and legal fees – has, unsurprisingly, worked spectacularly well. Still, not everyone is falling in line. So once the Supreme Court decides in favor of same-sex marriage, the pressure on the recalcitrant is sure to increase.
Christians who believe in the biblical definition of marriage will be the most ardently targeted. And it won’t simply be Christian business owners in the crosshairs any longer. In his book, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, atheist philosopher, Daniel Dennett, called Darwinism a “universal acid” that “eats through just about every traditional concept.” Same-sex marriage, it’s safe to say, is a similar acid eating through the Constitution and the protections it guarantees us for our most basic freedoms.
Canada’s 10-year experiment with same-sex marriage provides a frightening preview of things to come.
In an essay posted at Public Discourse, Dawn Stefanowicz describes in chilling detail the loss of fundamental freedoms Canadians have endured since same-sex marriage became legal in 2005. Americans should “expect severe erosion of First Amendment freedoms if the US Supreme Court mandates same-sex marriage,” Stefanowicz warns. “The consequences have played out in Canada for ten years now and they are truly Orwellian in nature and scope.”
Once the Supreme Court “finds” a right to marriage in the Constitution, as Al Mohler often notes in his daily podcast, no orthodox Christian will long be able to avoid taking a stand. “One of the earliest lessons Christians had to learn,” Mohler writes in his blog, “was that we cannot simultaneously bow the knee to Caesar [or even to the culture] and to Christ. We must choose one or the other.” Wise Christians should start thinking now about how they will respond when the test inevitably comes.