A World Where Gay Marriage Is Law of the Land

WASHINGTON -- Since the U.S. Constitution is silent on marriage, prominent traditional marriage defender Ryan Anderson wishes the Supreme Court would just toss the gay marriage controversy back to each state.

"The court should say that there's nothing in the U.S. Constitution that requires the 50 states to redefine marriage," the Heritage Foundation scholar suggested to CBN News. 

"The Constitution doesn't tell us which vision of marriage is the best. Where the Constitution is silent, the people in the states and our elected representatives should be making marriage policy," he advocated.

Next Roe v. Wade?

But as the justices have been pondering their ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges - the case that could make gay marriage legal everywhere - they've been looking across a land where there was no legal gay marriage just 15 years ago. It's now legal in 37 states.

Many high court observers think since gay marriage is already legal in so many of the states, the justices might find it the simplest thing to go ahead and just say "let's make it the law of the land in all 50."

But even a ruling as simple as that will have serious implications.

Anderson believes it'll set off a culture war as divisive as Roe v. Wade if the court wipes out every state law preserving one-man, one-woman marriage amendments.

"Just like in Roe v. Wade where the court got the abortion issue wrong, they got the Constitution wrong; they engaged in judicial activism," Anderson explained. "In the same exact ways, if they strike down these marriage laws, then they got the Constitution wrong; they got marriage wrong; it's judicial activism."

'A Storm of Persecution'

Some states have already punished bakers, florists, and photographers who won't support gay marriage with their businesses. Imagine if gay marriage is legalized nationwide.

"There will be a storm of persecution against all people who follow God and His standards if this passes," Rev. Franklin Graham recently wrote on his Facebook page.

From his offices next to Capitol Hill, attorney Mark Trammell, with the Liberty Center for Law and Policy, watches a nation slowly turning from and even turning against biblical standards.

"There seems to be a trajectory that things that are biblical are becoming less and less okay in the public sphere," Trammell told CBN News.

'We're Going to Obey God'

Trammell's senior colleague, Mat Staver with the Liberty Counsel, and other faith leaders like former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and  former Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., are saying if the court endorses gay marriage nationwide, it's time to be defiant and fight back.

"Several Christian leaders are calling for some form of civil disobedience," Trammell said.

In fact, just this week the current president of the Southern Baptist Convention and 16 of its former leaders issued a joint declaration.

"We will not accept, nor adhere to any legal redefinition of marriage issued by any political or judicial body, including the United States Supreme Court," they declared.

Trammell said the battle cry of such Christian leaders is that should they be "'put in the position of choosing between obeying God and obeying government, we're going to obey God.'"

'And if there are legal implications because of that, that's something that we're willing to accept," he said.

No Better Than Racists?

And they'll likely have to as more opponents are characterizing backers of traditional marriage as no better than bigots or racists.

As Republican presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., told CBN News' David Brody, "If you do not support same-sex marriage, you are labeled a homophobe and a hater."

"They want to say that our beliefs about marriage are like racist beliefs, and therefore like the Bob Jones University case, we should lose our tax-exempt status," Anderson said of these opponents in the culture war.

Anderson is referring to a disturbing exchange between Justice Samuel Alito and the government's Solicitor-General Donald Verrilli during the April 28 hearing of Obergefell v. Hodges.

Alito asked Verrilli, "In the Bob Jones case, the court held that a college was not entitled to tax-exempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating. So would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same-sex marriage?"
 
The solicitor-general replied, "It's certainly going to be an issue. I don't deny that. I don't deny that, Justice Alito. It is -- it is going to be an issue."

'It Was Chilling'

Anderson was in the courtroom at that moment.

"I was in the courtroom for oral arguments, and that statement, those comments by the solicitor-general, that exchange about whether or not tax-exempt status for Orthodox Jewish, Roman Catholic, evangelical Christian, Latter-Day Saint institutions - lots of religious believers who are at risk here - when he said it is going to be an issue, it was chilling," he said.

As it's likely government authorities will go after more backers of traditional marriage in the days ahead, Trammell hopes the accumulated weight of their persecution will begin to awaken the conscience of a country.

"Stories are powerful," he declared. "I think stories of religious freedom being compromised by compulsion of the government - folks being fined exorbitant amounts just for having faith - I think that tells a story that is really compelling to the general public."

Anderson said that preserving religious liberty and the freedom to believe is so crucial that such brave stands for them will be vital.

"Religious liberty is not just the freedom to worship in your chapel," he insisted. "It's the freedom to live out your faith in everyday life, Monday through Sunday, in the workplace, in the public square, in the marketplace, at your home, at your school, at your charity."

"So it'll be very important that we insist that the government never violate that fundamental right, the first freedom, that's articulated in the Bill of Rights: the freedom of the free exercise of religion," he said.

Marriage Part of Natural Law

"Just like the pro-life movement after Roe v. Wade said, 'We should never be forced to pay for abortion or to perform abortion,' so too people who believe the truth about marriage should demand that the government never violate our rights to believe and to act on the truth about marriage," Anderson said.

Trammell worried that if the justices rule in any way that forces same-sex marriage on the country, those justices will be placing their authority and that of the government above the authority of the Almighty because it's God Himself who created and supports the marriage of man and woman.

"It's a matter of the natural law, created by God and revealed through the laws of nature and of nature's God," Trammell said. "So moving forward, there's a huge issue here of the court usurping jurisdiction that it just doesn't have."

Anderson pointed out the justices may be uncomfortable enough with the idea of imposing gay marriage on the entire country by judicial fiat that they may instead go for a halfway measure.

A Halfway Measure

"Some people have suggested that the court's going to try to split the baby - pardon the metaphor," Anderson stated. "They'll say, 'The Constitution doesn't require all 50 states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but it does require all 50 states to recognize marriage licenses to same-sex couples from other states."

The problem is once you open this particular floodgate, how do you limit the marital chaos?

"If California were to redefine marriage to include polygamy or polyamory, could a Texan go to California and have a group marriage, and then move back to Texas and say, 'The Constitution requires you to recognize this?'" Anderson explained.

The way Anderson sees it, the ultimate problem with any decision bolstering alternatives to traditional marriage is how it decays the thousands-of-years-old building block of societies: the family unit.

Men, Women Interchangeable?

"What redefining marriage does is it really sends a signal that marriage is about consenting adult romance. It's not about the needs or rights of children," Anderson explained. "It more or less sends the signal that mothers and fathers are replaceable because men and women are interchangeable."

"The truth, though, is marriage is about uniting a man and a woman as husband and wife so that kids will have a mother and a father, that children deserve both a mother and a father," he continued. "And we need an institution that's devoted to that practice."

"So, if you change marriage, you ultimately change parenthood," Anderson concluded. "Our laws shape our culture. Our culture shapes our beliefs. And then our beliefs shape our actions. So there's a lot at stake here."

Anderson is also author of the soon-to-be-released book The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom. It will come out just as soon as Anderson has a chance to write a last chapter about the court's upcoming Obergefell v. Hodges ruling.