Posted on 03/17/2015 7:22:13 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
If the Supreme Court decides that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, will that signal the end of social conservatism?
People have long predicted the end of the religious right and, increasingly, even the demise of “white Christian America.” These obituaries typically prove premature.
First, why assume a loss at the Supreme Court will end the religious right’s reason for existence? Organized social conservatism was built from such defeats, including high court rulings against school prayer and legalizing abortion.
The school prayer decision will turn 53 in June. Roe v. Wade turned 42 in January. Neither of those issues is completely settled, as people still argue about them today.
Polls still show majorities of Americans more supportive of sanctioned religious practice in public schools than Earl Warren’s Supreme Court (and perhaps John Roberts’). The public remains split on abortion, with sporadic recent trends in the pro-life direction.
The Republican Party has not nominated an even mildly pro-choice candidate for president since 1976 and hasn’t chosen a presidential nominee who supported Roe v. Wade since the decision was handed down.
In fact, there remains significant public support for the teaching of creationism in public schools 90 years after the Scopes trial and two centuries after the birth of Charles Darwin. So let’s not overestimate the ability of the courts to resolve contentious social issues.
The public is trending in favor of gay marriage and that includes religiously observant people, albeit at a slower pace. But white evangelicals are still pretty opposed. Maybe lawsuits forcing them to bake cakes and make floral arrangements for ceremonies contrary to their faith will convince them; maybe such actions will transform the gay marriage debate to an argument over state recognition of same-sex unions to a fight over religious liberty.
Even if gay marriage does cease to be hotly debated, it’s not clear that means no religious right, much less no social conservatism. While Jerry Falwell was opposed to gay rights since the 1970s, his Moral Majority was dissolved almost five years before gay marriage first became a live political issue in 1993.
Ronald Reagan, the president who helped make the GOP the white evangelical’s party, had opposed a Falwell-backed California ballot initiative banning openly gay schoolteachers two years before he told a religious right rally, “I know you can’t endorse me… but I want you to know that I endorse you and what you are doing.”
Opposition to abortion and conservative views on religion in the public square may well be enough to keep an active Christian right going. It’s also clearly the case that decades of participation in the Republican Party have coincided with white evangelicals becoming more conservative across the board. Even if they can’t do anything about gay marriage in 2016, they will still be motivated by the marriage between Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Social conservatism is relative and not static. There was a time when people debated the role of women in the workplace. The end of that debate did not signal the end of social conservatism. In fact, the face of social conservatism as far back as the 1970s was Phyllis Schlafly, who — whatever her views on working women — was one. She’s in her 90s and still working today.
It’s hard to predict the politics of social issues. For a while in the 1990s, it looked like abortion was going to be an unambiguous liberal victory while gay rights was still polarizing. Conservatives like Charles Krauthammer were urging Republicans to wave the white flag in the “abortion wars” while polls showed only 27 percent support for gay marriage as late as 1996.
Now it looks like the opposite is the case. Abortion is as contested as ever while gay rights — including gay marriage — reflect a new social consensus. Part of this is because gay rights activists stopped doing things like protesting churches and started asking for socially conservative things, like joining marriage, the military and the Boy Scouts.
If a large enough group of people starts agitating for polygamy, that issue could replace gay marriage and some number of people who support gay marriage will oppose it. Here’s Jonathan Rauch, one of the leading proponents of the conservative case for gay marriage, arguing against polygamy, for instance.
Let that be a lesson to us all. No matter how progressive we fancy ourselves to be, if we live long enough, one day we will be reactionary troglodytes. No matter what the Supreme Court says.
I wonder if the SC is willing to open the floodgates. If they allow homosexual marriage, how can they rule against polygamy or incestuous marriage? Once you open that door, there is no closing it and no end.
If they do that, it will revers the decision of dozens of black robed tyrants.
No!
That is why I belong to a church that doesn’t ask for any tax exempt status. We are a totally independent congregation that never has claimed any tax exemption just because we are a church.
All our congregants know that they can’t claim their donations as tax deductible and are amenable to it.
A growing church full of believers that want to hear the word without having to kowtow to our governments edicts.
We can preach what we want without government interference (at least for now).
we do not have to associate with others if we don't want to....
That would not even be CLOSE to game, set, match.
Christianity had its finest hour when its government was turning those accused of being church members into lion chow and human torches. There were not really “churches” as in buildings those days, but a vibrant, powerful church made up of people that gathered together in homes. Most of those people were slaves and society’s unwanted. They did a magnificent job of needing each other and caring for each other.
Part of me wishes that the Christian Church would be driven underground in this nation. I think it would do wonders, in many senses of that word, for Christians to not have monuments to human vanity that they punched the clock at every or, let’s be honest here, MAYBE most Sunday mornings at best. Christianity was never about vocational ministry and who has the most lavish architecture. It was about people showing the love of Christ and speaking with the master’s voice to the lost sheep that have not yet heard His voice.
Another part of me wants to remain comfortable and ineffectual...
“Marriage isn’t addressed in Constitution. The Court will say that this issue is up to the individual states.”
Was that missing a sarcasm tag?
If not, consider that there are four doctrinaire leftists on the Court and Justice Kennedy, who wrote the Texas “sodomy is a federal constitutional right” decision and Justice Roberts who did pro-bono work on the Roemer case, which was a major Supreme Court victory for homosexuals, again making federal law supreme as against the states on homosexual issues.
It will be a 6-3 decision for homosexuals.
The Constitution doesn't mention abortion or "reproductive rights", either. How'd that work out?
Yep-next they’ll be protesting for child marriage. Then again, we’ll be a Muslim country by then, so that will come in automatically.
True Social Conservatives can be misrepresented by tainted polls and a lying media, but, unlike liberals, our moral beliefs are not a fashion statement nor are they used by us to win popularity. They are constant, unwavering and deeply felt. No court decision will ever change that.
Make us froth, perhaps.
no
Yeah, just like the abortion ruling did.
Same sex marriage will remain as controversial as abortion, regardless how the supremes rule.
Thanks
What is Oklahoma proposing to do with marriaage law...?
Did Roe v. Wade end abortion foes in America? Absolutely not, it only made them stronger. The Pro-life Movement and 40 days for Life are the result of Roe v. Wade. It will be the exact same thing if the lawless US Supreme Court finds something in the Constitution over 200 years years after it was written that says homosexuals have a right to get married. The Constitution does not mention marriage and anything not mentioned in the Constitution reverts back to the States. Been that way since the founding of the country. There is nothing new to be found in the Constitution. Decent Americans will never accept queer “marriage”. It’s the stupiest thing ever heard of or talked about in the history of this country.
In terms of beliefs, no. In terms of political clout, yes. Let's face it, old conservative coalitions that voted for traditional social and religious values, are passing on.
Yep, and our people are less worried by shame than ever before. No shame, then no respect or bottom people will find repulsive. Just keep giving other people’s stuff to them and they will be happy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.