Minority Rule: The Defeat of Traditional Marriage

Traditional marriage no longer exists exclusively as a union between one man and one woman in this nation.  Once a hallmark of American life, the religious doctrine of marriage has been swept aside by courts in defiance of the expressed will of the majority.

The destruction of the marriage dogma didn't happen overnight. It was waged initially by a tiny minority.  (The largest federally funded study in history conducted last year found 2.3 percent of adults self-identified as gays, lesbians or bisexual.)  But this group enlisted some heavy hitters.

Big Media, Big Business and Anti-Religious zealots linked hands with those same-sex couples who wanted the right to marry. This cabal bullied those who opposed their agenda, labeling them bigots, homophobes and intolerant. Firms that stood for traditional marriage were boycotted and smeared.  

Despite the mushrooming protests, voters in 31 states overwhelmingly approved constitutional amendments supporting traditional marriage during a turbulent decade. There was not a single defeat until 2012, when Maryland and Maine voters approved same-sex marriage.

After early ballot defeats, the gay alliance decided to switch tactics and use the courts to frustrate the majority.  Courts obliged, overturning traditional marriage laws in 26 states, paving the way for same-sex marriage.  Pro-marriage laws remaining in eight states are now under legal challenge.

In the midst of the judicial struggle, the Supreme Court weighed in on the issue in 2013.  The justices struck down a key provision of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), declaring that gay couples married in states where it was legal could receive federal health, tax and other benefits.

DOMA, signed by President Clinton in 1996, defined a legal union between one man and one woman.  It passed in the House 342-67 and was approved in the Senate by an 85-14 margin.  Today the same-sex crowd likes to rewrite history, claiming DOMA was the handiwork of sex-obsessed Republicans.

In 2008, even President Obama declared that he was "not in favor of gay marriage."  He maintained that stance until the 2012 presidential election, when he flip flopped and announced that he thought it was a good idea that "same sex couples should be able to get married."

Taking their cue from Obama, the Democrat Party weaponized same-sex marriage.  It became a campaign punchline for slandering Republicans for not being inclusive and haranguing Christians and Jews for clinging to judgmental ideas about marriage.  The nastiness was pervasive.

Insult and intimidation carried the argument over those who wanted to maintain the historic meaning of marriage.  Most supporters of traditional marriage held no animosity toward same-sex couples.  In fact, many were willing to allow civil unions between same sex adults.  But compromise was a dirty word.

To solidify their position, same-sex marriage proponents co-opted the media into blind loyalty to their agenda.  Pew Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism scrutinized nearly 500 news stories on same-sex marriage in 2013 and found statements supporting LGBT's position outweighed traditional marriage arguments by a margin of five to one.

The entertainment industry never made any bones about its support. Movies, music and television celebrated the so-called diversity of lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender adults with fare that flatteringly portrayed their sexual orientation and pitched the moral argument for gay marriage.

The weight of the propaganda has shifted public opinion.  Recent polling shows that a majority of Americans now support same sex marriage.  The changing tide raises the question of whether churches may be coerced into performing same-sex marriages in violation of their religious beliefs.

Eric Johnston, president of the Southeast Law Institute and a legal adviser to churches, thinks it is inevitable there will be legal challenges.  "There will be a lot of lawsuits over whether ministers have to do it," he predicts.  The result will be a clash between personal and religious freedoms.

The federal government likely would side with plaintiffs who lodge suits against churches.  More than religious freedom would be at stake.  The government decides if churches qualify for tax-exempt status.  The outcome of a case could potentially mean religious groups would be forced to pay taxes.

With the stakes so high, it helps explain the vociferous reaction from the LGBT community over recently approved religious freedom laws. They are clearly worried these statutes will be used to justify allowing churches and synagogues to reject same-sex marriages on religious grounds.

Thus the stage has been set for the next battleground in the cultural and social war.  If history is any guide, the opinions of a few people in judicial robes will be the only ones that matter.  Most Americans and their elected representatives will be relegated to footnotes in this epic struggle.

If traditional marriage, a bedrock of American life, can be changed forever, then every social and cultural norm faces the same fate.  The problem is whatever the majority wants no longer carries the same weight it once did.  Minority rule by those with shrill voices has become the new normal.