More on Marriage Debate

                I was very pessimistic yesterday about the non-ruling by the Supreme Court that forced same-sex marriage on the five states opposing it.  I still find it very depressing and concerning, but I can still see a little light on the horizon.  I found two articles that helped me think more positively.  One explained that there is no “marriage equality” no matter what the judges say, and the other explained why the fight for traditional marriage is not over and what we can do to assist.

                Matt Walsh, a blogger, writer, speaker, and professional truth sayer, had an article published by The Blaze that helped me to see that light.  His article was all about how there is no “marriage equality” even if the Supreme Court says we must have it.  “I have no problem with marriage equality – except that it doesn’t exist.  It can’t exist.  It never has existed.  It never will exist.  `Marriage equality’ – that is, the idea that the union between a man and a man can achieve equality with the union between a man and a woman – is nonsense….

                “And so today, as liberals again trumpet this conflicted notion of `marriage equality’ …  Despite the compelling case made by the pink Facebook equal sign, I’d like to take it back to the basics and explain why `gay marriage’ is not and can never be equal to `traditional marriage.’  After the news of the court decision (or lack thereof) broke, Huffington Post declared in big bold letters across their front page:  FIVE STATES GET MARRIAGE EQUALITY.  Yet marriage equality is a logical and physical impossibility; it can’t be gotten or granted or instated.”

                To “flesh out” his reasoning, Walsh asked himself several questions and then answered them.  The first question: “Is there a basic and fundamental difference between the union of two men and the union of a man and a woman?  Yes.”  Then he listed several reasons why they are different.  The following questions simply built upon the first, ending with this one:  “So the marriage between a man and a woman is different from the marriage between two men or two women, and the difference is quite essential.  Fine.  But should the government codify that difference by awarding the `marriage’ title only to heterosexual couples?  Why shouldn’t the government just stay out of it entirely?”

                Walsh answered his question thusly:  “The government doesn’t `award’ marriage or give it away like a cash prize in Wheel of Fortune.  All the government can do – and should do – is recognize the natural reality of the situation.  If marriage is anything, then it is an institution meant to bind a husband to his wife, a wife to her husband, and both mother and father to their children.  If it is something at all, then it is the foundation of civilization.  It establishes the context in which families are formed and children are raised….

                “The very fact that we are having this conversation proves that everyone involved sees marriage as something greater than a `contract between consenting adults.’  And if it’s something more significant, then we are back to the old definition, which is the only definition that makes sense in the first place.

                “You can’t argue for gay marriage without arguing against it.

                “In the end, we find out that I have worded my own arguments wrongly.  It’s not that gay marriage isn’t equal to straight marriage; it’s that gay marriage can’t exist, no matter what words we use, but `traditional’ marriage does, no matter how progressive we all are….

                “No matter what the State does, the essence of marriage cannot be changed, and marriage will still be a sacrament bestowed by God through a husband onto his wife and a wife onto her husband….

                “Marriage equality does not exist.

                “Marriage isn’t equal to anything because there aren’t any other versions competing with it.

                “Marriage is only one particular thing, and it will never be anything else.

                “We don’t have to like that fact, but we need to accept it.”

                Ryan T. Anderson of The Heritage Foundation  claims that the debate about marriage is far from being over.  He claims that the refusal of the Supreme Court to hear any of the cases about same-sex marriage is “a setback for sound constitutional self-government and a setback for a healthy marriage culture.  Rather than a single Roe v. Wade of marriage, where the Supreme Court would redefine marriage across the nation, the Court, by refusing to hear any of the marriage cases, has allowed lower federal courts to disregard the constitutional authority of citizens and their elected representatives to make good marriage policy. 

                “Good laws that reflect the truth about marriage, frequently assed with overwhelming democratic support, have been struck down by judges without any compelling argument that they are unconstitutional.  We should recognize this for what it is:  dozens of minor acts of judicial activism, rather than one major one.”

                Anderson encourages us to continue the fight to defend marriage and gives the following reasons:  (1) “Continue the Legal Battles.  Marriage is too important to allow unelected judges to redefine it without a fight….” 

                (2) “Make the Case for Marriage.  Nothing in these legal opinions changes the actual reality of what marriage is or why it matters – it simply codifies a faulty vision of marriage in law and thus makes it harder for future generations to understand and live out the truth about marriage….”

                (3) “Protect Our Freedom to Speak and Act on the Truth.  Now is the time to insist on the freedom to speak and act on the truth about marriage.  Governmental recognition of same-sex relationships as marriages need not and should not require any third party to recognize a same-sex relationship as a marriage….

                (4) “Defend a System of Constitutional Self-Government.  The judicial usurpation of politics on the marriage issue provides an opportunity to remind citizens of the importance of elections and the importance of judicial nominees.  Millions of Americans have had their voices and their votes discarded by a small handful of unelected judges – judges appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate….

                (5) “We Must All Take the Long View.  Whatever happens, it is essential to take the long view and to be ready to bear witness to the truth even if law and culture grow increasingly hostile.  There are lessons to be learned from the pro-life movement….”

                Even though the Supreme Court let us down, there is more we can do in defending traditional marriage.  Truth is truth, and the truth will eventually come out.  We know the truth about marriage and will eventually become free from the tyranny presently imposed upon us.