As we continue to recover from Obergefell and prepare for the horrors yet to come, let us once again remind ourselves that the move to bring the state into the issue of marriage was to prevent “miscegenation,” interracial marriage. Whether it is a good idea for a white person to marry a black person (or vice versa) is a separate question – I would expect that there are millions of black women who are better off for not having married me – but again, given the lack of evidence that any of the family of faith in the Bible (except Joseph, possibly Daniel, and Esther, all rather enigmatic figures) involved state functionaries in their weddings, it would appear that God’s people can marry quite nicely without blessings from those who wield the sword.
Christians seem to have been silent when the state arrogated to itself the right to legitimate marriage. To the degree that we are to defend what is sacred, that was dereliction of duty. Once the state is allowed to define marriage, marriage will become whatever the politically powerful say it is. Since Jesus never promises political power to his followers, even a porcupine of little brain can infer that the definition of marriage will eventually be turned against us.
This is a time for acknowledging, even if it’s too late to change anything now, the plank in our own eye so we can warn our grandchildren to warn their grandchildren that if they ever have the chance to put their hands on the levers of power, not to take the shortcut of granting the state sovereignty over the family.
Moving on, as Ma Ingalls used to say, “There’s no great loss without some small gain.”
In this case, the small gain is that now I have a response for the statist who insists on referring to chaos (even that brought about by the state) as “anarchy.” (I realize that this “gain” and four quarters will get me anything I want at the Dollar Store only where there is no sales tax.) I can now say, “If you want to know how I feel when you refer to chaos as anarchy, just think how you feel when you hear ‘gay marriage.’”
Somehow I don’t expect to be able to use that on anyone until we’re sitting in the same prison cell awaiting “enhanced interrogation,” and by then we’ll have other things on our minds.