The Definition of Marriage is Non-Negotiable

Ever since Virginians approved a ballot measure in 2006 to amend the state constitution recognizing marriage as a union between one man and one woman, progressive liberals in the General Assembly have been pushing for its removal.  The past two years they have even attempted to have the constitution amended to not only remove the language but also recognize any marital arrangement - like polygamy.

“It’s time to remove this stain from the Constitution,” Virginia state Senator Adam Ebbin (D-Alexandria) said referring to their latest attempt during the 2022 General Assembly Session.  We have arrived at the point now that some people actually see natural and biblical marriage as a stain.

Last week, twelve Republican senators joined 50 Democrats to achieve the necessary 60 votes to approve the motion to proceed on the misnamed “Respect for Marriage Act,” which will codify same-sex marriage into federal law and persecute anyone who does not follow the federal government’s view of marriage and sexuality. With this procedural vote out of the way, the Senate will soon take a final vote on the bill that will now only require a simple majority to pass.

The 12 Republican senators who voted with the Democrats include: Roy Blunt (R-MO), Richard Burr (R-NC), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Susan Collins (R-ME), Joni Ernst (R-IA), Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Rob Portman (R-OH), Mitt Romney (R-UT), Dan Sullivan (R-AK), Thom Tillis (R-NC), and Todd Young (R-IN).

For devout people of faith, the “[Dis]Respect for Marriage Act” demeans and undermines the institution of marriage they know to be between one man and one woman, as designed by God and supported through centuries of anthropological evidence. Under this bill, any failure to adopt the government’s stated position on marriage will be viewed as “sex discrimination.” 

From a policy, legal, and Constitutional perspective, this bill will generate some major threats to religious liberty, including:

• creating a private right of action that allows people to sue people who still believe in biblical marriage if they believe their rights have been violated;

• subjecting business owners, like Jack Phillips and Baronnelle Stutzman, to more costly litigation;

• jeopardizing the work of faith-based social-service organizations - like faith-based foster care and adoption agencies - by threatening litigation if they follow their views on marriage when contracting with the government; and

• threatening the tax-exempt status of faith-based nonprofits.

Until the Dobbs v. Jackson decision that returned the issue of abortion to the states, progressives in Congress were content, for the most part, with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges that invented a “right” to same-sex marriage and forced it on all 50 states. Then, Justice Clarence Thomas, in his concurring opinion on Dobbs, wrote the following on “substantive due process” – the principle that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protect fundamental rights from government interference:

“In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents.” [Emphasis added]

This statement caught the ire of progressives in Congress, who used it as an opportunity to advance the need to “protect” their radical and unbiblical view of marriage.

However, the “[Dis]Respect Marriage Act” does much more than recognize same-sex marriage – it is a devious attempt to impose a set of draconian laws and expectations that allow the federal government to punish anyone who objects to same-sex marriage. This was made abundantly clear last week when, in the hours leading up to the vote, bill patrons adamantly rejected an amendment by Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) to prohibit the government from removing tax-exempt status based on religious beliefs about same-sex marriage. According to Sen. Lee, once the bill is enacted, it will commence a dangerous series of events that will result in the removal of tax-exempt status for religious institutions and eventually contribute to the destruction of religious liberty altogether.

Now consider that over the summer Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act, which created 87,000 new IRS agents who will now be able to use the full power of the federal government to target and harass religious schools and other faith-based organizations into compromising their beliefs about biblical marriage or risk being stripped of their tax-exempt status. Whether or not that was orchestrated, government will be closely monitoring people of faith and religious groups, which could have serious consequences.

As Christians, we must remain steadfast in our obedience to the institution of marriage as created by God and not waver or compromise on our convictions. More bluntly, to support any legislation or policy that defines marriage as anything other than a union between one man and one woman is to deliberately compromise on an institution that has been defined by God, made clear in scripture, and has been a hallmark of Western civilization.     

For conservatives in general, it is equally important to uphold the institution of marriage as the union of one man and on women. As Dr. Albert Mohler recently commented on this very issue, “You can have someone who claims to be conservative on fiscal and on other political issues, but if they are subverting the institution that makes human civilization possible, then they are no conservative. They are not acting to conserve what must be conserved if civil society is to continue, be healthy, and flourish.”

These assessments may seem blunt but cutting through the fog of “fairness” and “equal rights” is absolutely necessary to protect essential foundational principles and institutions, and hopefully restore those that have been lost to deconstructive cultural influences that are antithetical to a free society.