Tradionalism Was Never Going To Hold

Many years before Obergefell, same-sex marriage activists accurately identified the underbelly of their opponents’ political and cultural position: Most support for “traditional marriage” was not based on a sophisticated and principled conviction, but rather the social intuition that supporting marriage-as-it-has-always-been was the safe, respectable opinion. What LGBT activists needed to do, then, was not so much defeat a collection of arguments but undermine the perceived respectability of traditional marriage.

&mdash:Brandon McGinley, “Why The Left Hunts Kim Davis

    Post authored by:

  • R. Scott Clark
    Author Image

    R.Scott Clark is the President of the Heidelberg Reformation Association, the author and editor of, and contributor to several books and the author of many articles. He has taught church history and historical theology since 1997 at Westminster Seminary California. He has also taught at Wheaton College, Reformed Theological Seminary, and Concordia University. He has hosted the Heidelblog since 2007.

    More by R. Scott Clark ›

Subscribe to the Heidelblog today!

One comment

  1. Yes, but this quote from the article nails it, even if it’s in the form of a question:

    “…..what if we are no longer (or never were) a good liberal society? What if there’s a new dispensation? What if decades of casual relativism has resulted in a void that is being filled not by a self-critical broadmindedness but by a pious commitment to autonomy, especially sexual autonomy? What if the unprecedented freedom to express introduced by the Internet becomes a more effective (but less easily recognized) means to enforce orthodoxy rather than to proliferate heterodoxy?”

    It’s unfathomable to me how many Christians believe in some sort of historic American religious toleration and fail to realize that modern liberalism (or whatever other label for it you choose) is not liberal but a competing religion as intolerant as any Islamist mujahedeen.

Comments are closed.