What Now?

With all of that background behind us, let’s look to the big question:  What now?

That was the most troubling question I had after the Supreme Court ruling. The people can still have a voice when  things are being handled by legislatures.  But now that the court has issued its dictat on this cultural question, there really can be no political activism applied directly to the issue anymore. 

The situation closely resembles the state of affairs after Roe vs Wade.  Creative alternatives had to be found to protect the rights of children which could survive the scrutiny imposed by the Supreme Court. 

The are the ideas I had.

Legislatively:

Call Things what they Are:

I have heard it said that Confusious regarded his most important reform was calling things by their proper names.  Well… when “marriage” in the public sphere reduces to an economic partnership between any number of consenting adults, the time has come to stop calling it “marriage”.

If I were a legislator, I would want to introduce a bill which would change name to “civil union”, “civil partnership”, or “domestic partnership”.  The bottom line is that the word “marriage” will go back to the culture and the State will stop using it.  That will help (but far from resolve) the State’s involvement in this cultural matter.  That’s to the benefit to all of society.

The bonus for people who adhere to the natural-conjugal understanding of marriage is that we can continue to teach and believe in a proper understanding of that word without the State standing over us saying, “That’s wrong and bigoted.”

Attack the Roots:

If you recall, one of the first major changes to marriage in America was the normalization of divorce.  Even if the conjugal nature of marriage is now off-limits to the political process, the permanence of it can still be addressed. 

I wonder if it is possible to draft legislation to eliminate no-fault divorce when children are involved. If enough sociological data could be mustered to show the benefits of growing up in an intact home, a public case could be made for this cause.

Protect Children’s Biological Rights:

Lastly, one could also make a public case that a child has the right to know the identity of his or her biological mother and father.  That means every birth certificate must have a space for “mother and father” even if the parents will be someone else. 

There are cases where a child may not choose to exercise the right to know his/her parents.  But cementing the reality of motherhood and fatherhood in law would at least preserve that idea – and introduce it into our legal tradition as a right the State must uphold.

Ecclesiastically:

Christian ministers typically act as representatives of the State in ratifying new marriages.  That, I think, is going to work against us in two ways. 

First, it provides a legal foothold which can be used in a lawsuit.  It is only a matter of time before someone tries to sue clergy for not performing same-sex weddings.  I’m not saying those efforts will be successful, but it is only a matter of time before it is tried.  The relationship which clergy has to the State in this matter will provide a legal toehold for launching a lawsuit.  That toehold should be removed.

Second, the blurring of those two “marriages” together under one roof can obscure the distinction.  Decoupling clergy from the governmental contract will further highlight the religious significance of marriage for Christians.  It will take a deliberate, conscious effort to seek out the religious ceremony and go through with it. 

Publicly: 

This is the part that changes the least.  The belief that motherhood and fatherhood offer distinct and complimentary benefits to a child is now a thought-crime.  The belief that men and women are designed to be complimentary to one another and complete one another is a thought-crime.  But we have to witness to the truth of these thought-crimes in as many ways as possible.

First and foremost, it will mean providing a good witness to people in our own lives.  Because if we give up the true practice of marriage in our lives, how can we expect anyone else to do it?  

But this also means not being afraid to be called things - to be called the worst things.  It takes no courage to go along with the currents of the popular culture.  You can hold your head high and bravely face the applause you will receive.  

Cowardice is a luxury rarely afforded to those who stand for truth.

[BACK]