The created order is foundational for Christian Orthodoxy; its the ground from which revelation must be understood. The Incarnation alone proves that God meets humankind on an equal footing.
The philosophical achievement that became the Reformation, the Renaissance and the Enlightenment all invert this foundational ground. What all three movements have in common is they begin from within an exalted idea of reason and autonomy. The contemporary achievement that has become ‘Gay Marriage’ can only be accomplished within this very ‘nominalist’ house. Nominalism being the denial of objectivity itself, whose highest regard is moral norms.
What happened in the June 26, 2013 Supreme Court ruling on D.O.M.A. (Defense of Marriage Act). First of all, this act was passed with bi-partisan support during the Clinton regime.
Let’s break down what happened on June 26, 2013.
1. The Court struck down key provisions in DOMA.
2. The Court denied standing to proponents of California’s ‘Proposition 8’, which was an attempt to return California statute to the classic natural law meaning of marriage.
3. The Supreme Court did NOT declare ‘Gay Marriage’ a Constitutional right!
Point three is important, for it measures the impact the Supreme Court ruling will have in the immediate future.
The terms in which DOMA was struck down make it much more difficult for proponents of traditional marriage to succeed in State legislatures.
How did this happen?
The language/reasoning the Supreme court used in its ruling ceded to “Gay Marriage” advocates the rhetorical and moral high ground. By validating the ability to ground marriage within exalted reference to intention, personal autonomy, lifestyle or liberty, means that pro-gay-marriage advocates will have a platform from which to assault traditional marriage within State legislatures.
The rhetorical weapon used against natural law requires that all orthodox Judeo-Christians will need to understand the limits of working within the “DICTATORSHIP OF RELATIVISM”.
How should the Church proceed?
It needs to rethink its own social, political and strategic relation to civil marriage.
Make no mistake, this battle will be waged along contours similar to Lincoln’s Civil War, only this time far more insidious because of its use of verbiage cloned from inside the house of philosophical nominalism.