At this point, most of the arguments both for and against same-sex "marriage" have been set forth. Many of us conservatives hold to the view that government should not be involved in marriage in the first place – yet, here we are.
I've also heard the same refrain from practically everyone on the right, me included at times. The defeatist attitude of "we can't put the genie back in the bottle," or "what can we do now - it's over, now that the Supreme Court has ruled." And the ever popular: "it's now the law of the land."
But evidently, that's not how the left viewed it, for marriage between a man and woman has been the convention and the de facto "law of the land" literally forever. That didn't stop them and shouldn't stop us.
Although the mainstream media loves to say that polls show the American people favor same-sex "marriage," I don't buy that for a minute. I know how polls are so easily manipulated to achieve a desired result. If it was so popular, why did states refused to put it on so many ballots?
In fact, 31 states voted in favor of a constitutional amendment or state referendum defining marriage between a man and a woman or, like Hawaii, at the very least, limited marriage to one each of the opposite sex, which is the same thing, I guess.
Virtually every state that put the question up for a vote of the actual voters voted against same-sex "marriage." So there is no great groundswell of support for it, and there never has been.
So what now? Is the fight over? What about religious freedom as the Constitution spells out?
CNN reported: "President Barack Obama, speaking after the highly anticipated ruling, urged those celebrating to keep in mind that many Americans oppose same-sex "marriage" 'based on sincere and deeply held beliefs.'" Those beliefs, he suggested, should remain a protected part of the country's "deep commitment to religious freedom."
So - do you believe him? Me either.
"In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well," Justice Clarence Thomas said. "Today's decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter."
Well said, although it should never have been a "governmental institution." And that's not the world we currently live in. It is one ruled by a miniscule radical left minority and they don't care about the latter. In fact, they want to end the latter.
The Blaze quotes Dr. Richard Land, president of the Southern Evangelical Seminary, saying: "Will the progressive, totalitarian and intolerant left weaponize the government and attempt to force or compel people to affirm same-sex behavior and relationships? Or will they respect the freedom of conscience guaranteed by the Constitution?"
By now, that should be rather obvious.
This is what I think will happen: the ultra-left homosexual rights groups will now begin to coordinate; they will begin to send out homosexual couples to every Christian church in the land and claim that it is now a human right for same-sex couples to wed, and demand, not request, that churches marry them.
Mark my words – this will happen. Maybe not immediately, but soon thereafter. For the radical left, this is not about marriage, it never was. It's about the abolition of the convention of marriage.
Now what's to stop two men and a woman from marrying – or 3 – or 5 - or 10? To take it to the absurd – why now can't an entire town of 3 or 5 thousand be joined in unholy matrimony? If it's good enough for any two – why not more? What's the difference?
And really – what can anyone say anymore – that ridiculous? Why is it ridiculous? After all, you can't define true love with a number, right?
I'm not sure the left thought this one through completely because I don't think the right is going to just bend over and take this one. This time, the left may get an actual fight, and, historically, they are not equipped for such a thing.Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.