The current administration’s view on traditional marriage s apathetic, at best. Marriage licenses are state issued business contacts and as such they simplify the process of ownership in the instance of death or dissolving of a contract in the presence of joint ownership. The problem with the national debate and the political challenges of an ever evolving liberal view of same-sex marriage is summed up well by Ryan Anderson at the Daily Signal: Citizens are, of course, free to redefine marriage policy to include same-sex relationships, but so too should citizens be free to retain in law the historic definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman—as citizens in a majority of states have done. Transversely, churches look at marriage as a religious covenant; in which, all parties involved are accountable for the successes and failures of the marriage. Allowing states to issue marriage licenses is not the end of the issue but the beginning.
The definition of marriage is a moral battle to keep the definition of marriage defined by Judeo-Christian tradition. It is wholly different from the battle for civil right or interracial marriage. Neither of those issues had any true biblical merit to their existence and were both dishonorable and immoral. However, this is not simply a short viewed win but instead a domino in an ever present battle for the moral conscience of the nation. For many, the debate falls into two different but horrifying contingencies: the further broadening of marriage and/or the collapse of religious freedoms.
Definition of Marriage: At what point will marriage slide into a promulgation of bestially, pedophilia, and/or polygamy. Several FLDS and other polygamy groups, have already gone on record as saying they are building case work to support their group and push for an even further expansion of the marriage based on the legal successes of SSM groups. Even Law and Order, caught on to this trend almost a decade ago with a pedophile monologue in court with the very notion that it would be one day accepted.
Religious Freedoms: Fighting against the ever changing political, social, and secular construct provides the necessary legal bulwark for protection against those who would use religious facilities in ways contrary to religious covenants. It is only a matter of time before churches are directly challenged, Recently, Hands-On Originals in Lexington, KY was forced into a re-education class, a very Maoist derivative, for refusing to complete an order even though they provided info about a competitor. Those who would want to use a structure or grounds because of aesthetics might sue to gain access; thus, forcing members of a church into a diametrical paradox of state forced obligations vs religious morality. In some cases, radical options of dissolving the church association or even seeking bankruptcy so as not to have access granted during a specific time could become prominent stories in the coming years.
The mere fact that the President has changed his stance on marriage twice in three years shows that the issue is both ephemeral and political. The only gains that can be made are at the expense of those in contrary belief to that of the Executive Branch. He also has do so to an accepting member of the press and not from the Bully Pulpit; which can mean only one thing. It is still politically too dangerous for him to say, “Ultimately, I think the Equal Protection Clause does guarantee same-sex marriage in all 50 states. ” New Yorker Magazine The quote was also buried in a article about judges and his choices for federal appointments. It appears to be an also-ran in a politically charged article about race and the justice system.