Christians lost the abortion issue when the Supreme Court ruled from on high on January 22, 1973. Christians may soon loose the gay marriage issue if the Supreme Court again has the chance to rule by judicial fiat. Last summer, the Supreme Court laid the legal groundwork in Lawrence v. Texas for expanded homosexual rights, and a recent Massachusetts Supreme Court decision more specifically about homosexual marriage promises to make gay marriage a national issue. With the courts poised to take up the gay marriage issue, as they did the abortion issue, the time is now, if Christians want to safeguard the sacred institution of marriage.

The only proven method of stopping the Supreme Court from wrecking this particular havoc is to amend the Constitution. The Supreme Court acts as the highest law of the land in interpreting the Constitution (often making legislation from their interpretations), and hence the attempt to safeguard marriage by merely passing laws will not restrain the Supreme Court from imposing gay marriage across America.

The Goodridge v. Massachusetts opinion mandates that the state create provisions for gay marriage. The only bright spot in this revolutionary opinion is the "serious tactical error on the part of the gay-marriage movement," that it represents, as Hoover Institute Fellow Stanley Kurtz aptly pointed out. The Massachusetts push for gay marriage may have been a mistake, because it pushes the issue to a national level at a time when the general public still seems to oppose homosexual unions. In other words, Goodridge may spark a wildfire of support for the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA).

Despite efforts to minimize the radical nature of the Lawrence decision, it is now clear that the Supreme Court ruling has implications reaching far beyond abolishing anti-sodomy laws. Indeed, in the Massachusetts case, the very first case cited and discussed was Lawrence v. Texas, still warm off the press. Because the Supreme Court granted homosexual behavior special Constitutional protection, it almost seems foregone conclusion that any gay marriage case which reaches the Supreme Court will result in the creation of homosexual marriage - for every state in the land. This would do for marriage what Roe v. Wade did for abortion.

Because the Supreme Court has already established the legal precedent that will lead it to mandate homosexual marriage, Christians must act now to prevent the federal courts from taking over the issue and hijacking the fundamental social institution of marriage. Some politically conservative Christians may be reluctant to support the FMA because it defines marriage on a national level and therefore limits the local authority of the individual state. Furthermore, National Review's editors have it right: "We are all for federalism. But federalism is not the same thing as government by 50 state judiciaries." If Americans do not pass the FMA now, the courts will completely take over the issue - eliminating any potential benefits of leaving the issue to the states.

Perhaps the greatest surprise in the current gay marriage debate has been the relative silence from Christians. While the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family with a few others have made some noise, there has been little outcry from Christians writ large. It seems as though Christians do not understand the urgency of the issue - though this is rather unlikely. It is more likely instead that many Christians have taken note of the gay marriage debate and chosen to put the issue on the back burner because they don't understand the current importance of the issue. Some Christians simply may not see the issue of homosexual marriage as a national problem - since the only current court case is in Massachusetts - but with the current speed of Full Faith and Credit legislation, the courts will soon disprove such sentiments. (Under the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution, what one state recognizes must be recognized by other states - hence homosexual marriage in Massachusetts will soon spread to all other states.)

The urgency and importance of the current situation cannot be overstated. Marriage is a fundamental institution of society, an institution established by God that has held together societies for millennium. Christians ought to care about marriage because the Bible indicates that God cares about marriage.

Subtlely, those supporting gay marriages have re-defined marriage to fit their goal of pushing the normalization of homosexual relations upon America. Even the Goodridge court has chosen to redefine marriage.

Marriage is a vital social institution. The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support; it brings stability to our society. For those who choose to marry, and for their children, marriage provides an abundance of legal, financial, and social benefits. In return it imposes weighty legal, financial, and social obligations. (Goodridge)

This definition may seem harmless at first glance. After all, marriage is a vital social institution and it certainly does provide stability. However, marriage is not, and has not been merely a 'commitment of two individuals' which 'nurtures love and mutual support.' Marriage is, and always has been the union between one man and one woman. What the Goodridge court has done is to offer a definition of marriage that is true - in as far as it goes. The subtlety of this tactic is to offer a watered down definition of marriage, perhaps in hopes that people won't reflect on what is missing. Marriage defined merely as a 'commitment between two individuals' is somewhat like defining a Corvette as a car with four wheels and two doors. This is correct - but false in what it leaves out.

To redefine marriage in such broad terms really does make a big difference. For example two college roommates may be committed to support each other, they probably support each other, and it can be argued that this relationship provides stability. But, one would be hesitant to say that the two college roommates are married. The Goodridge court, in that one sentence, redefined the debate to guarantee that gay marriage will be recognized. If marriage were only about support of two individuals, then opposing gay marriage would be irrational. Likewise, if marriage is only about 'individuals' then restricting marriage from oddball combinations, polygamists and apartment suite mates seems impossible.

In fact, if marriage is only about mutual commitment/support/whatever, then why limit the protections of marriage to two individuals? This limit seems arbitrary and is - in fact - a mere holdover from the traditional monogamous procreative Christian view of marriage. Those who support gay marriage cannot, it seems, explain why the definition of marriage should not be extended to encompass polygamy, bestiality, or other strange combinations. If two have the right to receive the legal and social benefits of marriage, then why not three? Gay marriage advocates have no good answer - because they have an arbitrary definition of marriage. Much to the dismay of the politically savvy homosexual marriage proponents, polygamists have already filed suit under the same legal precedents (Lawrence) as the gay marriage cases. Accepting the redefinition of marriage to suite the gay marriage community will destroy the institution of marriage. If not now, it will be destroyed in the future.

Christians ought to take note of future implications from the homosexual marriage issue. Severing procreation and child rearing from marriage, even if only in principle, will drastically change the way society views single parenthood and out of wedlock children. God created the institution of the family, the married man and women with children, as the basic bedrock of society. Deviations from this Biblical model, out of wedlock children and singleness, are simply barren. Marriage does not guarantee success, but it does provide, for the most part, a preferable social institution for the rearing of children. God designed children to be raised in families with a father and a mother, and marriage is the institution that accommodates this.

In conclusion, we should not forget the often-overlooked obvious truth - all of us have parents. Every person has a mother, who is a woman, and a father, who is a man. They should be related to each other, in the Christian understanding of society, by a marriage bond. There will be sweeping social implications that we can only begin to grasp if marriage is undermined because Christians are not willing to take a political position and fight. Abortion is atrocious, but even this murderous procedure does not have the fundamentally grand implications of marriage. This does not take away from the repugnant state of affairs where tens of millions of innocent children are murdered in this country. Rather, one must realize that marriage is a fundamental part of society - there is no escaping the breadth of the marriage issue. Start thinking about marriage and support the Federal Marriage Amendment - it may be our only hope.