A surprise decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the traditional definition of marriage in the states of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. State bans against same-sex marriage were previously ruled unconstitutional by lower courts, setting up the decision by the Sixth Circuit.

This decision is not only a surprise to advocates of same-sex “marriage,” but is also surprising to traditional marriage advocates that have watched marriage bans struck down by numerous Appeal Court decision around the country. What is not a surprise though is that this decision by the Sixth Circuit all but guarantees that marriage will once again come before the Supreme Court. There is a very real possibility that by next summer a Supreme Court decision on the definition of marriage could be reached.

Some have said that the high court is hesitant to issue a Roe v. Wade style blanket decision that would affect the whole country. That makes sense. The idea that a Supreme Court decision will somehow eliminate marriage as a divisive wedge issue for Americans is absurd. Just as the Roe decision did not eliminate abortion as a divisive wedge issue. Realistically, if the Supreme Court redefines marriage for the entire country I believe it will turn up the debate on the issue and firmly establish it as a central issue for decades to come.

As expected, reactions to the Sixth Circuit decision have been numerous and diverse. Byron Babione with Alliance Defending Freedom was quoted in the New York Times saying:

“The people of every state should remain free to affirm marriage as the union of a man and a woman in their laws. As the Sixth Circuit rightly concluded, the Constitution does not demand that one irreversible view of marriage be judicially imposed on everyone.”

But Evan Wolfson with Freedom to Marry disagreed:

“Today’s ruling is completely out of step with the Supreme Court’s clear signal last month, out of step with the constitutional command as recognized by nearly every state and federal court in the past year, and out of step with the majority of the American people.”

Wolfson’s statement is out of touch, in my opinion.

First, the idea there the Constitution issues some sort of command recognizing and legalizing same-sex “marriage” is false. Anyone that knows their history and knows about our Founder’s knows that their Judeo-Christian worldview prevented them from creating a Constitutional protection for a behavior they believed was sinful. The Founder’s, in writing the Constitution, went with the assumption that marriage was inherently the union of one man and one woman. A proper view.

But Wolfson’s statement that the Sixth Circuit decision is “out of step with the majority of the American people” is equally telling. First, it’s not true. Time and time again the American people went to the polls and voted to support the traditional definition of marriage. For this reason LGBT activists quit trying to get marriage amendments on state ballots and started suing to have laws changed. They saw that they were losing at the ballot with the American people and decided to force their will on Americans through the courts.

It is true that for a short while a majority of Americans supported legalizing same-sex “marriage.” However, as the implications of such a decision have become clearer, that support has faltered and more Americans are reversing their previous support.

Those implications include the ability of faith-based business owners to do business according to their religious convictions. It seems almost daily another Christian business owner is being sued for refusing to violate his or her religious convictions. Americans don’t like that. We don’t take kindly to being told to violate our consciences. So with each new day and each new lawsuit Americans become increasingly concerned that legalizing same-sex “marriage” will result in the loss of personal liberty and freedoms.

The fact that the city of Houston demanded the sermons of pastors concerning LGBT issues didn’t help either. American reacted swiftly and fiercely at the thought of a city government – or any government – trying to intimidate and silence pastors. And when a small town in Idaho demanded a pastor perform same-sex wedding ceremonies America recoiled with shock and disgust. The city quickly reversed its decision.

Some argue that it would be almost impossible for the Supreme Court to undo what has been done regarding same-sex “marriage.” They argue that trying to reverse all the lower court decisions would create a great deal of confusion and chaos. That might be true, but it doesn’t mean the high court won’t make such a decision if they deem it the right one.

I can’t help but think that advocate of marriage redefinition want the issue to come to the Supreme Court as quickly as possible to take advantage of the currently friendly climate. I believe they know that in 2 or 3 years the climate will be far different and a majority of Americans will no longer support marriage redefinition. Watching the effects of marriage redefinition on personal liberty and freedoms will erode support and advocates know it. So, they want the issue settled by the high court as quickly as possible – while a pro-gay marriage president is in the White House – to avoid a catastrophic loss.

I’m not a Constitutional lawyer, and I don’t play one on T.V. But I have friends that are Constitutional lawyers and none of them believe the Constitution guarantees same-sex “marriage.” They believe the Constitution gives each state the right to decide the issue for themselves – according to the will of the people. This makes sense considering the Founders believed in state sovereignty and rights.

One thing is for certain, this issue is not settled. Advocates on both sides will continue their efforts until the issue returns to the Supreme Court. If the Roe decision taught us anything, it’s that not even the Supreme Court can decide an issue.

Other articles on this story:

WND: Appeals court: States can define marriage as 1 man, 1 woman

Family Research Council: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit: Upholding marriage and democracy