Marriage Can’t Be Redefined
Article audio sponsored by The John Birch Society

One of the unique features of the country known as the United States of America is its Declaration of Independence. And perhaps the most singular of the numerous important affirmations contained therein is acknowledgement of a “Creator.” No qualification is given. The men who wrote and signed the document believed in the Almighty who created “all men.” In their day, of course, the meaning of “men” referred to all persons, male and female.

Belief in a Creator presupposes adhering to those standards of conduct He presents. One of these is the definition of marriage given in Genesis. After recounting the creation of woman from a rib of man, the Creator’s holy book tells us, “Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother and shall cling to his wife and they shall be two in one flesh.” In simple terms, the institution known as marriage is a union between one man and one woman. Without doubt, this is what America’s Founders believed.

History recounts numerous attempts to overcome this sacred relationship. In their 1848 Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels attacked bourgeois marriage as a hurdle standing in their path to tyranny. Decades earlier, along with their intention to deify sensuality, the 1776 Bavarian Illuminati, from whom Marx and Engels obtained much of their designs, formally advocated repudiation of marriage. Totalitarian libertines throughout history have likewise attacked the very concept of marriage because it has always stood as a bedrock of human civilization blocking their way to totalitarian rule.

An American who might have fallen asleep 60 or so years ago and then awakened today would, without doubt, be shocked to learn that more than half of our nation’s state governments have redefined marriage to include a union between two persons of the same sex. And the Supreme Court has agreed to render its opinion on the matter. A proper decision would state without equivocation that the “Creator” of all has already defined marriage, and it cannot be changed. The definition given us by our Maker is that marriage is the union only between an Adam and an Eve not between some Adam and some Steve.

Speaking before the “Women of the World” gathering at the United Nations early in 2015, putative presidential candidate Hillary Clinton stated that “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.” Many same-sex-marriage enthusiasts, including New York Times columnist Frank Bruni who is a proud homosexual, have seconded her attitude. Sadly, these two cultural and religious revolutionaries are hardly alone.

If not blocked, the route being travelled by a growing number will lead to further attacks on the family, eventual state takeover of children, and more. Yet, there remains a huge number of the American people who don’t agree with a redefinition of marriage and hold strongly to the “cultural codes” and “religious beliefs” openly decried by Mrs. Clinton. Questions remain: Will this still-existing number gather itself and return the nation to sanity? Or will this shrinking group collapse, as have others throughout history while they watched in horror the ushering in of a formally established Godless tyranny?

John F. McManus is president of The John Birch Society and publisher of The New American. This column appeared originally at the insideJBS blog and is reprinted here with permission.