Perhaps the more pertinent question might be, what caused the latest setback for supporters of traditional, i.e., natural marriage in America?
Marriage was, is, and always shall be a sacrosanct covenant between one man and one woman; wherein the two become one flesh according to the design, the explicit will, as it were, of God the Creator of all.
As argued previously, equality has never been part of the equation in the firestorm of debate over the issue.
More broadly speaking, what homosexuals and those who shill for gay “rights” have wanted all along, is for the US to recognize them as a distinct class of people, consequently being granted special consideration based on their sexual behavior.
On this level the LGBTQ faction, miniscule though it may be percentage-wise in relation to the overall population, has accomplished something of a dark and twisted coup in the wake of the US Supreme Court’s dubious ruling overthrowing DOMA and Prop 8, two of the primary laws that sought to preserve natural marriage.
So much for the equal application of the 14th Amendment, a section of the Constitution that it was always absurd for homosexual marriage advocates to cite in the first place. The court ruling actually makes a mockery of the “equal protection” clause, rather than to uphold it.
It would be easy enough to point the finger-of-blame at entities like NBC who were in the tank all the way for the homosexual lobby; or to take aim at people like high profile sportswriter Jason Whitlock whose obtuse and incoherent ramblings about the NFL “freeing gays” met little criticism other than in columns like this one.
One might even reference the relative indifference of those who call themselves Christians as being part and parcel of the high court’s decision. That indifference, in some cases, was so blatant that it was practically outright endorsement of individuals and/or corporations that endorse gay “marriage.”
An intriguing sidebar on that point, this Examiner challenged a local Delaware Christian, listener-supported radio station (identity withheld) about how they could comfortably prattle on about the wonders of Disney and how awesome Starbucks is, in light of the fact that the two are amongst the more ardent supporters of homosexual “marriage.”
Sadly, the inquiry was met with the typical logic-twisting rationalization many in Christendom use:
“I disagree with Starbucks on their marriage stance. I also disagree with the Delaware legislature on their marriage stance. But I still live and work and pay taxes in Delaware.
I am not capable of keeping a list of businesses or individuals who agree with me politically or morally, and only doing business with those that I agree with. (I suspect that list would be so short that I would starve and be wearing the same clothing for the next twenty years.)
I watch Disney movies, I drink Starbucks coffee, and I wear clothing that was probably designed by a gay person somewhere down the line.”
Moreover the owner of the radio station who shared this in an email response offered:
“I promise you if God convicted me to say bad things about Starbucks on the radio, I would do it. But He hasn’t.”
It should be noted that nowhere in the correspondence that initiated this reply was it suggested that the station should “say bad things” about Starbucks or anyone else for that matter. It was, simply put, an honest inquiry about how two announcers on a Christian station were seemingly ok about gushing over Disney and Starbucks, all things considered.
And as far as “conviction” is concerned, perhaps the gentleman might not be cognizant of passages like 1 Corinthians 6:2.
All these things aside, the demise of DOMA and California’s Proposition 8 was, ironically, sealed the moment each piece of legislation was passed. As soon as authority on spiritual matters, such as natural marriage truly is, was ceded to a secular body, the fate of the matter was assured.
When the government was allowed to assume, as it did, that it had ANY legitimate power to define marriage at all, it became a civil matter that would eventually be ruled upon by those whose worldview is completely antithetical to religion – orthodox Christianity in particular.
While the result is surely a convergence of a hodgepodge of actions, the fact of the matter is, the government’s interference in matters it had no business ruling upon in the first place opened Pandora’s Box. And now, no piece of counter-legislation, beyond unambiguously recusing civil magistrates from assuming authority in the matter of marriage, can close it again.