I intentionally waited to share my thoughts on the SCOTUS rulings from last week. Did you see all those articles that flooded newsfeeds and blogs? I perused over a hundred in two days myself. But the press is slowing down as other issues, like immigration and the economy take their place at the forefront of people’s minds. So now seems like a good time to share my own comments on what can only be described as puzzling rulings.

If we are to believe a recent headline, we can all rejoice that the “Traditional Marriage Movement [is] Gaining Steam.” Of course, the Supreme Court did just axe Section 2 of the federal DOMA law. While liberal media outlets and pro-homosexual groups are touting a “major victory” as a result of the rulings, legal analysts agree that not much has really changed. Bethany Monk of Citizenlink wrote:

“The Court struck down only part of the federal marriage law defining the institution as a union between one man and one woman for the purpose of interpreting and administering all federal laws and programs. Without Section 3, the federal government will not be able to define marriage for its own federal policies and federal laws; it must accept whatever states decide about same-sex marriage.”

This is the consensus I’m seeing from a number of legal analysts and appears to be consistent with the actual wording of the Supreme Court’s ruling. Practically speaking this means that DOMA still stands, except for the part that prohibits the federal government from granting benefits associated with marriage to same-sex couples living in states where homosexual marriage has been legalized. 

I suppose this might be discouraging for some, but the reality is that it is one of the better outcomes as opposed to the Supreme Court striking down the entire law – which they did not. 

And for the record, no one is quite sure at this point of the implications of the court’s ruling on Prop 8. Essentially, the court said it refuses to interfere with a state voter initiative, a good decision by the court. The court then returned the issue to the state, also a good decision, and vacated (erased) the appeals court decision for lack of standing to rule. Some say this means Prop 8 is still the law of the land until a proper appeal is brought, others believe Prop 8 was struck down. On this point, Ken Klukowski writes:

“On Wednesday, the Supreme Court held that only the losing defendants in that case–the governor and attorney general of California–had standing to appeal that decision. When they refused to do so, Prop 8’s official sponsors filed the appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and pursued it all the way to the Supreme Court. Since the official sponsors lacked standing to defend Prop 8, the Supreme Court refused to rule on the merits, and also vacated (i.e., threw out) the Ninth Circuit’s decision. But that means Prop 8 is still the law in California.”

So what we have is a bit of confusion over what the court actually did. If I understand the legal analysis to this point the court essentially voided one part of DOMA while leaving the rest intact and turned Prop 8 back over to California and refused to interfere with a state matter; leaving Prop 8 as the law of the land for the time being. The fact is it could have been much worse.

Many expected the court to issue a sweeping Roe v. Wade decision on marriage and legalize same-sex “marriage” in all 50 states. But they didn’t. They saw the error of Roe and refused to make the same mistake twice.

Would it have been nice if the court would have upheld all parts of DOMA and told California that Prop 8 stands? Yes! It would have cleared up a lot of confusion and avoided a lot of legal battles that will now take place. But it also would have set a dangerous precedent in which the Supreme Court interferes in state voter initiatives; a precedent that reduces liberty and tramples the free will of the people. No one wants that.

Homosexual advocates can be excited about the court striking down section 3 of DOMA, but the reality is that it now subjects them to the same “marriage penalties” heterosexual couples face. But it still doesn’t change section 2 which states that no state can be forced to recognize the same-sex union of another state. In other words, West Virginia cannot be forced to recognize the homosexual “marriage” of a couple married in Washington. This means a homosexual couple is not granted the benefits of a married couple in West Virginia. So it seems to be a very insignificant victory, if a victory at all.

Yes, I’m disappointed with the DOMA ruling. But even more to the point, I am concerned that this is just the beginning.

The headlines from groups like the ACLU and Human Rights Campaign after the Supreme Court rulings made it clear that this is just the beginning for the push to normalize and legalize homosexual “marriage” in all 50 states. If Prop 8 is in fact still law in California you can bet that a voter initiative to have it overturned is underway this very minute. Update: According to recent articles the stay placed on the ban of Prop 8 from being enforced for being unconstitutional has been lifted by an appeals court thus legalizing same-sex “marriage” once again in California.

But I’m even more concerned for what this means for the church in America. Dr. Russell Moore made a statement that bears repeating:

“In another sense, though, the marginalization of conjugal marriage in American culture has profound implications for our gospel witness. First of all, marriage isn’t incidental to gospel preaching. There’s a reason why persons don’t split apart like amoebas. We were all conceived in the union between a man and a woman. Beyond the natural reality, the gospel tells us there’s a cosmic mystery (Eph. 5:32). God designed the one-flesh union of marriage as an embedded icon of the union between Christ and his church. Marriage and sexuality, among the most powerful pulls in human existence, are designed to train humanity to recognize, in the fullness of time, what it means for Jesus to be one with his church, as a head with a body.”

The fundamental goal is to redefine marriage and to erase any semblance of Christ and His church from our culture. It’s not to attain equality or benefits, those are distractions designed to pull at heart strings and dominate the narrative while the underlying goal is advanced.

People living in rebellion to God don’t want the truth staring them in the face; moral absolutes preach a truth that cuts to the heart. So the only thing left for those in rebellion to do is destroy any absolutes.

I think the pregnant question is how will the church respond? Will it continue to tolerate a culture of divorce, co-habitation, and infidelity in marriage that threatens to destroy the family? Will it continue to skirt the issue of homosexuality in order to not “offend” anyone? Or will the church finally start teaching a complete model of biblical sexuality and marriage that boldly addresses all these issues? It’s not unloving to teach the truth of Scripture. It is however, unloving to teach only a half-truth while ignoring the whole truth.