Why Supreme Court Greenlighting Gay Marriage Could Be The Best Thing For Traditional Marriage

Contrary to Christian fears, a ruling in favor of same-sex marriage will only add instability to the already unstable “equality” movement.

If marriage equality wanted to build a more solid foundation for the future of their values, they would be upset at how many judges have overturned popular votes in so many states. They would also want the Supreme Court to show judicial restraint in Obergefell v. Hodges. But judicial restraint will likely be cast aside, those opposed to legal same-sex marriage will be galvanized, society will fall increasingly into sexual anarchy, and the narcissism currently at work will collapse under its own weight.

 

Same-sex marriage might appear to be unstoppable at the moment, but it has a host of traits that signal a coming collapse. Fearful forecasts are abundant among Christian circles as the United States Supreme Court takes up Obergefell v. Hodges, the appeals from Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee. Contrary to Christian fears, a ruling in favor of same-sex marriage will only add instability to the already unstable “equality” movement.

Supreme Court most divisive

The US Supreme Court has been the most stirring of America’s three government branches. It is the most undemocratic of the branches, with justices appointed by presidents and approved by the legislature, completely bypassing an election by the citizens. As such its actions have a way of stirring up citizens when its decisions fail to fit their views. Backlashes to rulings have sometimes taken the traits of the colonists protesting decisions by King George III. Many of its decisions go unnoticed and cause only a few ripples in public life. But when the Supreme Court rules on a controversial matter when passions are stirred on both sides and the whole nation is watching, the consequences are not always the desired outcome.

As the Supreme Court hears arguments on Obergefell v. Hodges, the entire nation will be watching. The topic is controversial, passions on both sides are stirred, and if their ruling legalizes same-sex marriage nationwide, the result has potential to be the beginning of the end for the marriage equality movement, especially if the support comes from people with antisocial traits.

The Supreme Court has a history of rulings that produced unintended consequences.

Dred Scott

On March 6, 1857, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in Dred Scott v. Sandford that black persons are not citizens and therefore may not pursue legal suits, and that the already-repealed Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional because it deprived persons of slaves as “property.” Even though Scott, a slave of a southerner who died in the northern free states, had been purchased by an abolitionist and promised freedom, overzealous abolitionists pressed the case to federal court. Slaveholders won the battle, but the decision fell along strict party lines with the 7 Democrat justices overriding the 2 Republicans. The decision helped galvanize the Republican party who would successfully run Abraham Lincoln for President in 1860 on an antislavery platform. Scott was set free as promised but died the next year, while the decision would bring the states closer to civil war.

The Supreme Court may not have been looking to start a war, but their personal bias led to the now infamous decision that eventually led to the nation’s deadliest war.

Roe v. Wade

On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court ruled on Roe v. Wade, and the decision is now a thorn in the side of the pro-choice movement.  Yes, the court had ruled according to their wishes, but it also a watershed moment for everyone who considered themselves pro-life. It began a movement that brought evangelical Christians to put both feet into politics, and uniquely brought together Protestants together along with Roman Catholics. While the winning side celebrated and continued about business as usual, the opposition was galvanized into a federation for something that, in their minds at least, crossed a fundamental moral line.

After over forty years, abortion is rarer and more unpopular than ever. Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one of the most liberal members of the U.S. Supreme Court, said the Roe v. Wade decision on abortion was a mistake. “My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum that was on the side of change.” Because the court did not show “judicial restraint,” as she called it, today those who call themselves “pro-choice” are at record lows. Ironically, on the eve of same-sex arguments, Ginsburg has been uncharacteristically outspoken on her support for same-sex marriage.

Coming collapse bits

Before 2012, same-sex marriage was never approved by voters. The first four states in the union to legalize same-sex marriage were by state Supreme Court decisions. Massachusetts was the first on November 18, 2003 and passed by only one vote. California came next on May 15, 2008 in another 4-3 decision, yet soon afterwards 1.1 million signatures were collected within just a couple weeks to oppose the ruling by popular vote. That vote became the now infamous Proposition 8, on which 52% of California voters approved to reinstate traditional marriage.

Then, even while same-sex marriage was beginning to become legalized through legislation in Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, and even voter-approved same-sex marriage in Maryland, Maine and Washington state, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to weigh in. On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in United States v. Windsor overturned the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) of 1996, recognizing and extending federal benefits to same-sex marriages in states where it has been legalized. Unfortunately, what was supposed to be limited to states that already recognize same-sex marriage has dropped the laws of other states like dominoes.

One month after the Windsor decision, the Supreme Court saw its lowest approval rating in three decades of tracking. Only a few months prior the court had 52 percent favorable and only 31 percent unfavorable. But after the controversial decision on same-sex marriage, those numbers sunk to 48 percent favorable and 38 percent unfavorable.

Loving v. Virginia

Proponents of same-sex marriage will be comparing this case with 1967’s Loving v. Virginia, which ruled against state laws banning interracial marriage. Both cases involve the Supreme Court overriding state decisions on legal marriages. But unlike the Loving case, this one is not skin-deep. Interracial marriages have occurred since the beginning of recorded history. Kings would form alliances with other nations by marrying daughters of rival kings. In the Bible, Ruth is shown to be a pillar of virtue, yet she was Moabite, not Israelite. Still the Israelite Boaz married the Moabite Ruth, and their marriage is still celebrated today for producing King David.

Interracial marriage v. same-sex marriage

While interracial marriages have occurred since the beginning of time across the world, legal marriages between same-sex are nearly unheard of before the 21st century.

Not only would approval of same-sex marriage be unprecedented in human history, it also crosses a fundamental moral line with huge majorities of religious people. Like Roe, approving same-sex marriage in every state with one strike of the gavel will also be the final call to all who disagree. The potential alliances are enormous. Muslims and Mormons are both fast-growing religious groups that oppose same-sex marriage, not to mention the Roman Catholics and evangelical Protestants who united against abortion.

Who really supports equality?

“Equality” supporters would point out that the youngest generations are the most likely to support same-sex marriage. But this is only part of the story.

Of all demographics, the least likely to have changed their view on same-sex marriage are the younger generations of evangelical Protestant churches and those who worship weekly. The devout religious demographics have not changed their minds as much as the headlines would suggest. As the nonreligious grow, a religious backbone of society is emerging.

Younger generations also have negative traits that could easily create counter-trends in the future. Younger generations have the record-breaking rates of narcissism, alarming both sides of the same-sex marriage debate. Narcissism is an inflated self-esteem where people are oblivious to common good, incredibly self-centered and entitled, overfocused on pleasure and self-indulgence, racking up high debt and financial instability, and leave long trails of broken relationships, friendships and families. Notably, when they are denied an entitlement, they lash out in anger, even posting their own assaults on YouTube.

Is it a coincidence that the same younger generations supportive of same-sex marriage are also the most narcissistic?

Is it a coincidence that compared to the general population, Gallup found LGBT-identifying Americans have significant financial difficulties, higher rates of smoking, lower rates of community involvement, and lower rates of thriving relationships?

Is it a coincidence that narcissism is connected with entitlement and entitlement is the impetus behind marriage equality, and any refusal is met with fierce anger?

Is it a coincidence that an Indiana pizza joint, which would not refuse service to LGBTQ customers, dared to refuse catering gay wedding ceremonies have had so many death threats that they go out of business?

Is it a coincidence that same-sex advocates in the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church, and the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) have moved forward with same-sex equality decisions even though major segments in each of the three denominations were opposed and each resulted in splits? Does this resemble the love of Christ, which is patient, kind, not proud or self-seeking, etc., or does it resemble narcissism’s entitlement and obliviousness to common good?

Self-centered entitlement and enforcement by vicious anger is self-defeating. Yes the “equality” supporters have cooler heads to possibly prevail. But if these are the people approving of same-sex marriage, the potential for collapse is only a matter of time.

Outcome

Of course, the cooler heads could prevail and the marriage equality movement could moderate. Same-sex marriage could be legal for many years. The virtue of unbridled tolerance could prop up the laws and new social norms for some time. Then again, the intolerance of “tolerance” never ceases to amaze. Same-sex marriage laws could remain on the books, but should society finally realize the problems of sex without boundaries, the tide could change. Perhaps “two people” definitions of marriage will lead to incestuous marriages and perhaps more boundaries will fall under the acceptance umbrella. People might realize that being born a certain way and inability to change also applies to pedophilia.

A final Supreme Court ruling for marriage equality in all states would be a “cause for celebration,” writes Harvard Law professor Cass R. Sunstein. But as a supporter of marriage equality, he gives pause: “No one should be entirely comfortable with a situation in which the Supreme Court strikes down a practice that was widely viewed as unobjectionable just a few decades earlier. Judicial restraint has an important place.”

If marriage equality wanted to build a more solid foundation for the future of their values, they would be upset at how many judges have overturned popular votes in so many states. They would also want the Supreme Court to show judicial restraint in Obergefell v. Hodges. But judicial restraint will likely be cast aside, those opposed to legal same-sex marriage will be galvanized, society will fall increasingly into sexual anarchy, and the narcissism currently at work will collapse under its own weight.

Rev. Aaron Vriesman is Pastor at North Blendon Christian Reformed Church (CRC) in Hudsonville, Mich.