While the issue of abortion rages on ballots across the country, there’s one cultural issue where the Left feels increasingly vulnerable: same-sex marriage. Democrats, who are painfully aware of the woke pushback sweeping the nation, seem quietly anxious that the wave of public backlash may be coming for their crown jewel of LGBT activism — Obergefell. And, based on the latest polling, they have reason to be.
It’s hard to believe that it’s been nine years since the Supreme Court took a torch to man-woman marriage, rewriting the institution for every state in the union. Not surprisingly, the justices’ activism — which was supposed to “settle the issue” — did anything but. Millions of voters, who’d flooded the polls in the early 2000s to protect marriage in 30 state constitutions, were completely disenfranchised. Worse, they were forced to watch as the Left used the ruling as cover to push a much more radical agenda that includes everything from transgender “rights” to religious persecution.
After living through almost a decade of fallout from same-sex marriage, Americans — especially Republicans — are suddenly much less supportive of the concept. After creeping upward for the last decade or so, the bottom fell out of the issue for the GOP, cratering almost 10 points in the last two years. Only 46% of Republicans favor the idea now, down from 55% in 2022 according to Gallup. Asked whether same-sex relations are morally acceptable, the verdict is even more stunning: a 16-point drop from 2022 (56%) to now (40%).
It’s no wonder the Left is panicking, introducing a trio of ballot initiatives to wipe three state constitutions clean of any reference to natural marriage. While they’ve received virtually no media attention, California’s Proposition 3, Colorado’s Amendment J, and Hawaii’s Amendment 1 would strip the language voters added to protect marriage on the off chance the Supreme Court rights its wrong and reverses Obergefell — a prospect Justice Clarence Thomas raised in the reversal of Roe v. Wade.
“As someone who fought to establish and protect marriage equality in Hawaii for more than a quarter of a century, I refuse to stand by and watch this Court take a hatchet to rights won that had previously been denied,” wrote Rep. Jill Tokuda (D-Hawaii), in support of the state’s amendment. “If this court follows through on its threat to revisit Obergefell, we could easily see nationwide rights to same-sex marriage restricted again.”
And while some Americans might fall for the line that erasing this language from state constitutions is no big deal, they’d be wrong. As Jonathan Keller, president of California Family Council explained on “Washington Watch,” the ramifications of overturning these amendments in next month’s election are massive.
“[I]t’s hard to believe, but it was actually 16 years ago, [when] California, of all places, actually voted to enshrine marriage between one man and one woman into our state constitution. It was a narrow vote. At the time, it was only about 52% to 48%. But miraculously, by God’s grace, voters in California said that marriage was between a man and a woman. And if you can believe it, at that time, even Barack Obama … said that he thought marriage was between a man and a woman.” But, he continued, “After a relentless pressure campaign from the media and the culture, you are seeing our state legislature trying to … in their words, ‘clean up this section of the constitution.’”
And as far as Keller is concerned, it isn’t what the Left is trying to remove from the constitution that’s the problem. “It’s true that Prop 3 would remove the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman,” he told Family Research Council President Tony Perkins on Wednesday, “but it’s really about what they are putting into the Constitution, the fact that … they are inserting marriage now as a so-called fundamental right.” And yes, Keller acknowledged, we believe people have a right to get married. “Mothers and fathers are necessary. Marriage is good for society.” But this effort is much more sinister.
“There’s no definition on the age of people who can get married under this proposition. There’s no definition of the genetic relationship between people who can get married,” he explains. “[It] could be close siblings, or even parent and child who can get married. But I think, most crucially, and the most likely outcome, there is no … restriction on the number of people who can get married. And I think that polygamy is the next way station on this train of the Sexual Revolution.”
To the Democrats who push back, claiming, “Polygamy is already illegal,” Keller reminds them of Constitution 101. “A state statute [like polygamy] is subject to the ultimate law of the state, which is the constitution. And we know that if this passes, it’s going to open Pandora’s box.” In some places, it’s already started. He pointed to the cities of Berkeley and Oakland, who’ve passed new “nondiscrimination protections” for what they call “diverse family structures.” “That means more than two individuals, not just a mother and a father, but more than two individuals in a parenting relationship. … If this passes,” he warned, “you’re going to see those polyamorous relationships begin to petition the state government for legal protection.”
Look no further than the high-speed train of the transgender movement for proof this slippery slope exists. When Democrats started to embrace the idea that sex was interchangeable, it wasn’t because biology changed, or science changed. It wasn’t because thousands of years of human history changed. Feelings did. In the same way, Katy Faust warns, “Children haven’t changed. They come from a man and woman. They have a natural right to that man and woman. It is that man and that woman who grants them their biological identity that helps children answer the question, who am I? It is the mother’s and the father’s love that maximizes child development. … It is a child’s own mother and father who are statistically most likely to ensure that the child will be safe and loved.”
Those realities “were true 2,000 years ago,” she insisted, and “they’ll be true 2,000 years from now. They were true during Prop 8, and they are true during Prop 3. The question for all of us is: Will we understand and recognize and respect these fundamental realities of children — or will we victimize them because we would prefer to give adults what they want? … Are you going to stand with kids,” she asked, “or are you going to transform what is historically been the most child-friendly institution the world has ever known into just one more vehicle of adult fulfillment, because you don’t have the guts to say kids deserve their mother and father?”
The world won’t like it, Faust admitted. “They’re going to say things like, ‘You’re on the wrong side of history.’ I have news for you. You are never going to be on the wrong side of history when you are on the right side of biblical truth. You’re never going to be on the wrong side of history when you’re on the side of child protection.”
So what is her advice to voters? “Don’t bend. … Either the world is going to influence us or we’re going to influence them. And for a long time, they’ve been influencing us. And that needs to end.”
Editor's Note: This column first appeared here.
Notice: This column is printed with permission. Opinion pieces published by AFN.net are the sole responsibility of the article's author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of the staff or management of, or advertisers who support the American Family News Network, AFN.net, our parent organization or its other affiliates.
