On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court determined in a 5-4 decision that the right to marriage extends to same-sex couples under the Equal Rights Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This Obergefell v. Hodges ruling was not an expansion but a fundamental change to the institution of marriage. A change of this magnitude will have significant impact on laws, policies, institutions, and culture for years to come. Researcher and political analyst Ryan T. Anderson gives his take on what that impact will likely be.

The Supreme Court ruling on the Obergefell v Hodges case signifies a monumental shift in public opinion, and how U.S. culture understands justice and equality. As individuals and institutions adapt to the court decision and the new view of marriage that it entails, marriage will no longer be the stabilizing force for society it once was.

The activists’ work is not done, however. There is a concerted, well-coordinated effort to eradicate any kind of opposition and dissent to the new vision of marriage. If they’re successful, it could undermine fundamental freedom of conscience and religion like never before in the United States. Not only will conscientious objectors who hold to a traditional view of marriage be branded ignorant, irrational bigots, but there will be economic and legal consequences.     

Is this trajectory inevitable? The abortion debate shows us that it isn’t. Even after the Roe v. Wade ruling, there was plenty of discussion about the ethics of the matter. People protested, published papers, and suggested alternatives to abortive practices. Barring the extremists, most pro-choice advocates are not on a witch-hunt, advocating for the elimination of the pro-life position. It is also worth noting that public opinion has swung back in favor of life in dramatic fashion. In the years following Roe v. Wade, pro-choicers outnumbered pro-lifers two to one. Ted Kennedy, Jesse Jackson, Bill Clinton, and other liberals began to change their stance to match the shifting climate. In recent years, however, the pro-life position constitutes a growing majority.

The debate isn’t over. There is a precedent for Americans launching a timely response to bad judicial rulings, continuing the debate, and turning the tide of public opinion.  

Given all the vitriol injected into this topic, it will surprise most to learn that everyone in the United States is in favor of marriage equality. You heard that right, but it doesn’t mean what liberals would love it to mean. To phrase things less ambiguously, all marriages should be treated equally under law. Until about a decade ago, the debate was not about equality but about the definition of marriage itself. This question has not been satisfactorily clarified, which has exacerbated tensions and complicated attempts at meaningful exchange.

The slipshod logic behind “marriage equality” is that no distinctions should be made regarding sexual preference because that would be discrimination. But everyone in this discussion inevitably draws lines in an attempt to define marriage—it’s just a question of where those lines fall.

At the crux of the debate is a conflict of definitions: marriage as consent-based and the other as conjugal. The consent-based view of marriage sees marriage primarily as companionship based on intense emotional feeling. The priority you give to a relationship is the determining factor. The relationship is viewed as different by degree rather than different in kind. It’s not in a unique category, just more intense and involved.

This view cannot easily justify why a relationship should be comprehensive, permanent, and exclusive. Emotional gratification as a basis for a relationship is a recipe for impermanence. Feelings don’t last forever. Moreover, what would keep the consent-based approach from extra-marital activity? Polyamory works fine under the same definition of marriage.

To be clear, the consent-based vision began in the 1960s with the sexual revolution, well before homosexuality was a significant part of the discussion. Heterosexuals and homosexuals alike have contributed to the deterioration of the institution. The desire to redefine marriage as consent-based rather than a comprehensive, permanent, exclusive commitment between a man and woman grew out of 50 years of cohabitation, no-fault divorces, out-of-wedlock births, and pornography. If the new sexual ethic and “updated” view of marriage over the past 50 years were leading to overwhelming good for culture, women, and children, then it would be worth building around. But if it has been an overwhelming disaster for children (born and unborn), women, and families, why on earth would we set in tablets a view of marriage that will only make it more difficult to arrive at a more humane understanding of sexuality and family?

In this culture war between adults, children are the most tragic casualties. Defenseless and voiceless, children depend on adults to make decisions that will take their interests into account.  Because of the Supreme Court’s decision, not a single institution in our system upholds that a child needs a father and a mother.

The consent-based vision of marriage, which defines marriages as intensity of feelings for another person—regardless of gender—instructs a society that roles are completely interchangeable. A pair of women or a pair of men is just as legitimate if consent is the main consideration. The stability of the institution will continue to decline as the public continues to absorb the law and its implications.

For a long time, people on both sides of the political spectrum saw father absenteeism as the root problem leading to a slew of social issues. But if parents’ gender is unimportant, is the father essential or optional? If the law says optional, it becomes very difficult for anyone to say essential. Thus, a crucial social issue will likely be exacerbated rather than mollified. Children need to be raised in a stable union, and the most stable arrangement is a child raised by his mother and father.

Fifty years ago, a report on the state of the black family found that 25 percent were born out of wedlock. Today, 40 percent of children are born out of wedlock. Among Hispanics, that number is 50 percent; among African-Americans, 70 percent.

Without doing anything wrong, children born out of wedlock already face a far bleaker future than those born and raised by their father and mother. One of the consequences of the redefinition of marriage is that children will come to view marriage as emotional gratification rather than commitment. Fathers internalizing the new societal norms will be more likely than ever to leave when things get tough or boring than to stick around, and children will continue to bear the brunt of continued social breakdown.

As the sexual revolution reaches its zenith, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion are getting challenged and, in some cases, swept aside. Charitable organizations and private Christian schools are some of the most publicized cases. In Massachusetts, Illinois, and the District of Columbia, Christian adoption and foster services have been forced to close because they would not place kids with same-sex couples. This was not based on arbitrary discrimination or hatred, but the belief that children should be placed in homes with a mother and father. The real losers of these political jousts are the children, once again, our society’s most vulnerable and voiceless group.

Private schools and universities have also come under fire. For example, in 2015, the New England Association of Schools and Colleges threatened to revoke Gordon College’s accreditation because they listed homosexual acts as unacceptable conduct for its students. When Gordon refused to deviate from traditional Christian teaching on the matter, the New England Association of Schools and Colleges did renew accreditation, but a number of local organizations severed connections with the university, barring the school’s access to the Old Town Hall and denying student teachers positions in the local district.

In small businesses, too, careers have ended and businesses forced to shut down because people hold the reasonable belief that marriage is between one man and one woman. Photographers, bakers, and florists have lost livelihoods and homes over the issue. In every case that has gone to court, refusal of service is not based on orientation or gender identity but based on the wedding event itself.

One flower shop in Richland, Washington, Arlene’s Flowers and Gifts, had been making floral arrangements for 30 years—until a gay couple asked owner Barronelle Stutzman to handle flowers for their wedding. Stutzman had happily served the pair for over a decade, but declined to do flowers for the big day. She soon received notice from Washington’s attorney general, Bob Ferguson, that she was being sued for violating the state’s consumer-protection and anti-discrimination provisions. The attorney general told her she could pay 2,000 dollars and recant her discriminatory practices and he would drop the charges.  

In a letter to the attorney general, Stutzman responded that the terms laid out demonstrated that he did not understand the issue at stake, namely “freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment”—which the state of Washington is supposed to uphold. Ever since 2013, Stutzman’s property has been liable for seizure. Stutzman is saddened by the ordeal but gracious toward the gay couple (whom she still refers to as her friends), recognizing that the disagreement is fundamentally about what constitutes a marriage.

The main problem is not whether people get to choose with whom they want to be. The main problem is fundamentally changing the definition of marriage, and then forcing everyone to accept or face social, financial, and legal consequences. These cases are a foretaste of tensions that will continue to erupt as LGBT groups and lawyers insist on humiliating citizens and ruining businesses of those who happen to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Advocates of sexual orientation and gender identity (or SOGI) laws tend to cite the racial anti-discrimination laws as a precedent for SOGI anti-discrimination policy. For those who find the two struggles comparable, laws that acknowledge the view of marriage as between a male and a female are just as reprehensible as laws banning interracial marriage. One can support same-sex marriage while also rejecting a government’s forcing people to behave contrary to conscience. It’s especially dismaying when the belief at hand (marriage as between one man and one woman) is so reasonable and widespread across continents and history.

Is holding to the traditional definition of marriage comparable to racism?  Absolutely not. While the laws to protect against racism were needed and justified, the same cannot be said for the SOGI laws. Racial discrimination is a radical departure from the freedoms (properly understood) the United States offers.

The right to private property is essential in a free society. An imperative aspect of private property is the right of the owner to exclude and include as he deems best. This extends into the commercial realm as well. Someone who bakes cakes, for instance, can make decisions about inclusion and exclusion just as he would at home. However (and this is crucial), common law requires the proprietor to justify exclusion. And there are no good reasons for excluding people simply because of the color of their skin, and it is, therefore, unlawful.

Before the Civil War and Emancipation Proclamation, there was a horrendous race-based slave system in parts of the United States. Even after slavery ended, Jim Crow laws worked to suppress and segregate the black population. The Supreme Court rightly annulled Jim Crow, but there was still significant resistance to the racial integration process. Laws needed to be enacted to support the process. Racial segregation was deeply embedded in the culture when Congress got involved.

The cultural sentiments were such that the law was necessary to protect people from racism. Today, however, market forces are sufficiently robust that gay couples can have their cake and eat it, too. There are bakers, florists, and photographers aplenty. People in same-sex relationships can find them readily.

This leads us to another vital distinction, which is that discrimination is not based on differing sexual orientation per se but on different definitions of marriage, whereas racial discrimination is purely based on race. Think of the florist in Washington who happily served and is friends with people who identify as gay and lesbian. She did not refuse to do arrangements because of a couple’s orientation, but because doing so would be endorsing a definition of marriage with which she disagreed. In the case of race, there is no good reason for refusing service because of skin color. Equating the struggle for same-sex marriage with interracial marriage is absurd. If marriage is about a man and a woman entering into a permanent, exclusive union, the race of the people entering into a union is not an issue, but their gender matters a great deal.