Evangelicals After Obergefell: A Decade on the Wrong Side of History
I vividly remember the moment a phone alert jolted me into awareness. Sitting in a government office in Kentucky, my phone announced that the administration had decided to stop defending an old law defining marriage as solely the union of one man and one woman. For years, the idea of expanding marriage had steadily gained momentum, but in February 2011 there was no assurance that same‐sex marriage would become inevitable. Yet that news signaled a crucial symbolic shift—a presidential nod to the eventual national recognition of same‐sex unions.
At that moment, I thought, “A society that denies the truth about marriage stands in opposition to history, to common sense, and to what God intends for the family. Such a development runs counter to what makes a society flourish.”
2011: Entering the Fray
In 2011, shortly after finishing seminary, I began my first substantial job. My work took me across Kentucky as I engaged with pastors, spoke to legislators, mobilized local churches, and penned editorials on issues like the sanctity of life, religious liberty, and the meaning of marriage. I even nearly accepted a pastoral role in northern Kentucky, but felt a deeper calling to stand for causes being increasingly challenged in our culture.
I was drawn to the ideas of noted thinkers who defended marriage from a philosophical standpoint. They argued that marriage is the sacred institution where a man and a woman unite to become the parents of their children—a union that is complementary, exclusive, and meant to be permanent, according to what Scripture teaches.
As I have always believed, the teachings on marriage in Christianity are truths that resonate even beyond the church. Whether one labels it “natural law” or “creation order,” the basic idea remains: marriage is an immutable institution that no political majority or court decision can simply redefine.
Nevertheless, marriage faced relentless criticism from cultural elites, LGBT+ advocates, and prominent campaigns. It quickly became apparent that defending marriage was not just a matter of principle, but an urgent calling. In those early days, the fight was almost singularly dedicated to defending what many saw as a timeless truth.
2012: Continuing the Fight
The following year brought a new opportunity when I joined a leading policy institute, working closely with colleagues equally committed to defending conservative religious values. The battle over marriage intensified, sparking a flurry of editorials, coalition meetings, and media briefings. We spent long hours preparing responses and counterarguments to an onslaught of criticisms aimed at the institution of marriage.
Despite profound disappointments following a national election and several state referendum victories for same‐sex marriage, one argument for its spread became increasingly accepted: that the momentum behind same‐sex marriage was unstoppable. Critics joked that those of us holding traditional views were destined to be seen as relics, out-of-step with the inevitable current of history.
In that heated atmosphere, my colleagues and I risked our early career reputations by challenging what many believed was the prevailing tide. We reminded everyone that truths grounded in nature remain—even when they fall out of favor. Despite relentless personal attacks and public ridicule, we pressed on, convinced that defending the truth about marriage was a cause worth enduring any cost.
2013–2015: Anticipating the Inevitable
The Supreme Court’s decision in 2013 to dismantle the old law marked a turning point. The court’s ruling dismissed the traditional federal definition of marriage and sent shock waves through our community. In the wake of that decision, it felt as though we were waiting for the next blow—a nationwide mandate to recognize same‐sex unions under constitutional principles.
That moment arrived on June 26, 2015, when the highest court extended same‐sex marriage rights to all states in a narrow 5–4 decision. At that time, I maintained—and still do—that this move imposed a new definition of marriage without proper democratic or legal foundation.
2015–2025: Lessons from Obergefell
Now, on the tenth anniversary of the pivotal ruling, I find myself reflecting on what this long struggle has taught us. The decades spent battling for what Russell Kirk called the “permanent things” have left both blessings and hardships in their wake. Here are five key lessons learned over these challenging years:
1. The Value of Close Bonds in Adversity
Facing such a formidable challenge alone would have been nearly impossible. When accusations flew and personal attacks were frequent, it was the support of trusted friends and allies that made the difference. Even amid setbacks, gatherings were convened to offer consolation and strengthen our resolve. Over time, these shared struggles forged lifelong friendships and a steadfast commitment to our values.
2. The Unchanging Nature of Truth
Some realities remain constant regardless of cultural shifts. The Biblical account of marriage continues to hold true for those who adhere to Scripture. Marriage, as defined by the union of a man and a woman, is an established, ontological reality. No government decree or judicial ruling can alter this enduring truth. Even though social conventions have shifted, the inherent nature of marriage is fixed and unchangeable.
3. The Intrinsic Worth of Bearing Witness
Even when defeat loomed, the act of standing by the truth had its own value. When you are convinced of a truth that is beautiful and good, defending it becomes a purpose in itself. Commitment to these values does not wane simply because they fall out of favor with the majority.
4. Embracing the Long-Term Perspective
It was easy to be disheartened by the cultural victories we witnessed between 2011 and 2015. Yet those of us engaged in this struggle never measured our efforts by immediate popularity or short-term outcomes. Our reference points came from Holy Scripture, established reason, and the enduring patterns of history. The slow pace of true change reminded us that moral progress is measured over generations, not electoral cycles.
5. Advancing a Positive Vision Rather Than Merely Opposing Negatives
The rhetoric used by our opponents often focused on celebrating a new ideal while dismissing our stance as reactionary. We found ourselves entrenched in debates over abstract principles, while advocates for same‐sex marriage employed broad, appealing messages. Over time, a crucial realization emerged: it is far more effective to articulate a positive vision—especially one that emphasizes the needs and rights of children—than to simply fight against the prevailing trends.
2025 and Beyond: Questioning Obergefell’s Legacy
Political triumphs are neither permanent nor irreversible. Even though current laws and widespread opinion appear to enshrine same‐sex marriage, cracks are beginning to show. Increasingly, Americans are noticing the decline in traditional marriage and family structures, a trend that has coincided with falling fertility rates. There is a growing awareness that our cultural departure from a holistic vision of family may have deeper, long-term consequences.
In this challenging moment, it may be time to revisit the legal and cultural foundations of marriage. While the momentum behind same‐sex marriage seems formidable, small signs indicate that support, even among some Christians, is softening. The aggressive strategies of some LGBT+ activists have stirred a backlash, particularly as it has become clear that certain approaches undermine the authentic understanding of inclusion and respect.
As the debate continues, the focus is increasingly shifting toward the rights of children. Many now argue that every child deserves the balanced care of both a mother and a father—a standard inherent in the very nature of reproduction and family building. This perspective underscores a broader appeal: protecting children from arrangements that deliberately forgo the benefits of dual parental roles.
Today: Advocating for Change
The conversation around same‐sex marriage is much more than a debate over definitions; it strikes at the heart of justice for children. When we see families arranged in ways that, by their very design, lack either the maternal or paternal component, it forces us to ask whether these arrangements truly serve the best interests of children. At its core, justice demands that every child receive the balanced love and guidance of both a mother and a father.
This approach calls for a shift in focus—from abstract legal debates to concrete advocacy for children’s rights. The true battle is not merely about which ideas prevail, but about ensuring that the fundamental needs of the next generation are met. Defending children from the consequences of shifting cultural norms may be the most compelling way forward. If society truly values the enduring truths about family and marriage, then our legal and cultural frameworks must reflect that commitment.
Ultimately, a society that strays too far from the immutable truths of nature risks descending into moral confusion and social fragmentation. The responsibility to uphold these truths is not easily relinquished, even in the face of overwhelming opposition. As history has shown, the vision of a society anchored in lasting values may one day prevail, vindicating those who honored the truth even when it was unpopular. In that enduring struggle, there is both a duty and a hope—a belief that in the end, truth guided by divine wisdom will triumph.
Rockin’ the faith, one verse at a time!
Growing up, the Bible’s stories deeply impacted me. Now, with over 15 years of preaching experience, I blend timeless teachings with modern technology, making them relevant for today’s world.
Bible Hub Verse is my platform to share historical insights and thought-provoking articles, exploring both familiar and uncommon Christian topics. My passion is building a welcoming online space for everyone to learn, grow in their faith, and discover the Bible’s enduring message.
Join the journey!
God bless you.
By