No, no, no, no, no. Hoping the Supreme Court legalizes same-sex “marriage” in all fifty states is not a good idea. Yes, the issue is undoubtedly headed back to the high court and, yes, the court will be forced to rule whether or not individual states have the right to define marriage for themselves. But, to want the Supreme Court to decide for us all what the definition of marriage should be is an absurd proposition.

I get it, the writer of this article saying that such a decision by the high court would be a great thing for the Republican Party is thinking along secular political lines. His end game is a strengthened GOP that doesn’t have to deal with an unpopular cultural issue. Nonetheless, not only do I think it is a political strategy nightmare, I think it’s a moral disaster of epic proportions.

The writer starts off his support for a Supreme Court decision by saying: “Like it or not, opponents of gay marriage are losing the battle…A substantial majority of voters now support it, 59 percent in the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll.”

The writer then makes it clear that support is a bi-partisan effort:

“Forty percent of Republicans support marriage equality, including half of Republican Millennials (29 and younger). Even evangelicals, the heart of the opposition to gay marriage, are changing. According to the Public Religion Research Institute, a quarter of evangelicals support gay marriage.”

At the end of the article we are left with the end result, according to this writer:

“But if the Supreme Court suddenly ends the gay marriage fight by legalizing it nationwide, an issue that would have been an albatross around the party’s neck for the foreseeable future suddenly goes away. With DOMA already overturned and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repealed three years ago, gay issues would recede sharply from the national political stage, all to the benefit of Republicans running for federal offices. The most contentious social issue in generations will have been taken off the table, and both parties could move on to the many other challenges we face. The culture wars would largely be over.”

Seriously?

Is this writer really so naïve to think that a quick pound of the gavel by the Supreme Court and the “culture wars would largely be over”? Has he not been paying attention to the fallout from the lower court decision to legalize same-sex “marriage,” or the more recent ruling (Winsdor) by the Supreme Court?

The reason I say this writer is obviously coming from a secular political position is that for people with deeply held religious convictions the rulings up to this point, including the Supreme Court Windsor ruling, has caused a nightmare of culture wars. If you aren’t familiar with what has been happening you should do a quick Internet search to learn about the photographer in New Mexico, florist in Washington, baker in Colorado, and most recently the farm in New York.

Each of these people have been sued, tried, and found guilty of discrimination for adhering to their religious convictions regarding sexuality and marriage. Their cases were perpetuated by a political landscape created by federal judges that decided the definition of marriage. Does it sound like the culture wars are over for these people?

For any sane person paying attention to the political and cultural climate in our country to believe that a sweeping decision by the Supreme Court would end the culture wars is absurd. Did the Supreme Court Roe V. Wade decision end the culture war on abortion? Of course not. It ignited a now 40-year old war that will, I believe, see the issue once again before the Supreme Court.

The writer shows just how ignorant he is of both history and culture by even intimating that a Supreme Court decision on marriage would be a good thing for any political party. Abortion has become a polarizing political issue for political candidates, at times making or breaking their political campaigns. And, at one time abortion enjoyed broad support across the country, but has seen steep losses in support and declines in numbers as a result of the pro-life movement. So just because, as the writer states, same-sex “marriage” is currently enjoying broad support across generational and religious lines it doesn’t mean that support won’t fade, over time, as a result of the “pro-marriage campaign.”

The political differences between Republicans and Democrats need to exist. Without them we have a one part system; needless to say we are near that reality as it stands. The last thing we need is for the only pro-traditional marriage party in our country to abandon a party plank that is still largely popular and strong among the base.

But, and more importantly for me, this is an issue of biblical moral proportions. The writer may not be religious and may not care about same-sex “marriage” from a religious perspective. But, for many of us, legalizing same-sex “marriage” nationwide would force us, at some point, to make the choice of either adhering to our religious convictions or obeying the law. As the photographer, the florist, the baker, and the owners of the farm in New York are already know all too well – the two are incompatible.

So no, I don’t believe a sweeping decision from the Supreme Court is a good idea. I don’t believe it’s good for the Republican Party, and I know it will not be good for those seeking to live out their faith in their public and business life. And, as history has revealed with the issue of abortion, a sweeping court decision will certainly not eliminate the culture wars.