BreakPoint Blog

Banner
The future of marriage, government, and the church


At The American Conservative, Rod Dreher argues: "[Same-sex marriage] opponents would do well to abandon the fight against SSM, and instead focus on the threat SSM poses to religious liberty -- this, while there is still the prospect of energizing a majority of people to protect religious liberty."

What do you think? Agree or disagree?

Comments:

I guess the article confused me.

Fighting against SSM IS fighting the threat it poses to religious liberty. That's one of the reasons why we opposed SSM to begin with!

We knew that once marriage was changed to mean, effectively, 'anything you want', that a whole host of other problems would come along, threats to religious liberty being one of them.
yes, it would be easy to give up and let SSM promoters to have their way. that is what they hope for I think? If we allow this issue to go unchallenged what will we fight next? Its time to stand our ground and on Gods unchanging Word while loving our brothers and sisters where ever they are on their journey.
Dreher is not so much a defeatist, as Maggie Gallagher says, but a progressive. Of course he would deny this, and I do believe he’s ostensibly a conservative, but throughout his piece everything says the acceptance of the redefinition of marriage is inevitable, a Marxian march of history that we cannot deny. This is absolute hogwash. Nothing is inevitable in history or in our future.

He makes some good points about religious liberty and we can fight on that front as well, but because a few states passed laws to legalize the redefinition of marriage, it’s over? You get the feeling reading him, that this cultural move to acceptance is worthy of the biblical flood! In fact, take a look at the percentages in what are four of the more liberal states of the union:

Washington 53-47
Maryland 52-48
Maine 53-47
Minnesota 51-48 Didn’t legalize, but voted against changing the constitution to deny marriage to gays.

So almost half of the population in these very liberal states still thinks marriage is what it has always been. According to Dreher and other apologists for historical inevitability, in 5 years it will be 60-40, then 70-30, then 80-20 until a few radical religious bigots are left in some corner to rage against this historical tidal wave, because all the other bigots are dead. Again, hogwash.

The lesson here is that they who control the culture control the direction of a society. Like the Soviet Union, the modern liberal hegemony over our education systems, media and entertainment does not have to be forever. We are only “post-Christian” in the sense that these professions have massive cultural influence, and they want a “post-Christian” society, so that’s what they give us. The fight for the culture is harder than politics, but even more necessary.
To be honest the whole issue does smack of regiotheism on both sides. But that complaint has been done to death. More to the point, and related, is that it comes of a weakened federalism and an over mighty central government. The central government has no business in marriage except in an aristocratic society which we are not.

Be that as it may, it is well for us all to beware lest we write in a fit of despair. I have seen several articles today that seem to express such and it is quite undignified.