The Marriage Debate is Battle of Two Different Religions

Patrick Deneen, writing for Georgetown University’s Berkley Center, in many ways, nails it. As he points out, the debate over same-sex “marriage” should always have been seen as a battle of two different religions.

Many times I have pointed to Liberalism’s flawed anthropology as a root of its painful failures and conflicts, and Deneen sees it, too:

“Liberalism… was never ‘contentless,’ and its toleration was always limited to specific kinds of belief that would conform to deeper liberal anthropological assumptions.”

The Supreme Court’s overturning of all of human history in regards to marriage on completely irrational grounds is simply a work of blind faith by those who worship the State. Even many professing Christians have unthinkingly switched membership to this religion, most without any idea they have done so.

“The purported decline of religious believers so prevalent in our time simply masks the fact that they have become full members of the Church of Liberalism, and demand fealty to the religion of the state.”

Those who think “the sun came up again, and it will be life as usual” are in for numerous rude awakenings in the days to come as the false logic of Obergefell is applied in daily interactions in the public square.

“Accusations are now ubiquitous that continued belief in the privileged place of conjugal marriage is based upon mere irrational faith, animus, and bigotry. The reaction of defenders of same-sex marriage has been, quite simply, an invocation of faith commitment, without need for or even ability to make rational argument. Opponents to that position are heretics who must be suppressed, and claims to religious liberty—the right to be wrong—will be accorded all the respect that Christians were once given in the Colosseum.”

Deneen’s conclusion is a chilling call to action:

“We live in a State with an established religion, and any beliefs that contradict that faith must and will be eliminated. We must cease to ask for the ‘right to be wrong,’ and instead insist upon the right of Truth.”

While I mostly agree with Mr. Deneen, I think his final phrase is as short-sighted as the defenders of religious freedom he decries for having believed Liberalism would play fair, and utilize reason. Those tainted with Marxist assumptions—and let’s be honest, that’s exactly what’s unfolding here—do not even believe in “Truth” as a reality.

Modern liberal “truth” is whatever ends they autonomously choose in their own minds. They do not conform to the ultimate reality outside themselves, which is why seizing political power is the only thing that matters, in their eyes.

Our job is to recover and display “Truth” as a fixed reality. Our task is to pray for the Spirit’s enabling to proclaim Jesus as “the way, the truth, and the life” because it is only as more of our neighbors encounter God Himself that we will have any hope to recover freedom and Truth in America.