The Supreme Court Decision on Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Settled Little

Excerpts from a few of the many important articles written following the Supreme Court’s marriage decision last week:

The Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage settled little. It merely launched a bigger struggle over the definition of marriage.

Now, resistance to Obergefell v. Hodges will join Roe v. Wade in becoming another, long-tailed comet moving across the socio-political skies of America. […]

Following Obergefell v. Hodges, much discussion now centers on the potential loss of tax-exempt status to churches that resist.  Same-sex marriage zealots will look for opportunities to cement the Court’s decision by forcing churches, through the lower courts, to perform same-sex marriages.

Read more: American Thinker

The push for gay marriage is motivated by a moralistic zeal that sees only one point of view on the question as legitimate. If its supporters weren’t patient enough to see their cause through the inevitable fits and starts of the democratic process, they aren’t going to let procedural niceties stand in the way of an effort to bulldoze their way to a more thoroughgoing conformity on the issue. The gay-marriage debate isn’t over; it has merely entered a new phase.

Read more: National Review

If identity is a matter of psychological conviction and can override and even directly contradict biology, then we have no basis to privilege the soft biology of race over the much more significant biology of sex. […]

So why the big difference between women who are trapped in men’s bodies and African Americans who are trapped in Caucasian bodies? To quote Camille Paglia (reflecting in her typically incendiary way on why liberal Christians accept practicing gays but not foot fetishists): “No lobbyists, I guess!”

Read more: First Things

The idea that lurking in the penumbras of our 18th-century Constitution is a fundamental national right to gay marriage is simply preposterous. It is not there.

Read more: National Review

Legal gay marriage is not the endgame for the gay-rights movement. It never was. Moral approval is the endgame.

No, the real intent of removing tax-exempt status is to cripple the institutions that continue their dissent from the sexual revolution.

Read more: The Federalist

My real fear isn’t that the Left will win. I still have some faith that the American people, including large portions of the Democratic base, don’t actually buy all of this nonsense, or at the very least it’s reasonable to assume they won’t continue to buy it for long. Why? Because it’s exhausting. What’s the correct word today? What are we allowed to think? How long must we discuss a world that doesn’t bear much resemblance to the one we actually live in? Most people don’t want to be politically engaged constantly. […]

[I]dentity politics is fueled by generous subsidies from higher education, foundations, and other institutions designed to transfer resources to the Griping Industry. But if you spend enough time teaching people to think that way, guess what? They’ll think that way.

Read more: National Review

Image credit: