A lawsuit last year characterized then-Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) majority opinion as a “legal fiction.” This assessment holds merit, given Chief Justice John Roberts’ observation that the Constitution played no role in the decision. Yet what did play a significant role was growing public support for faux marriage—reaching 53 percent by 2011 and approximately 60 percent at Obergefell’s issuance in 2015.
This shift, activists argue, resulted from “a conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind, and will through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media.” The reference is drawn from a 1989 book, After the Ball, which detailed sexual devolutionary advocacy strategies.
This context fuels efforts by activist groups like Mass Resistance (MR) to overturn Obergefell. MR has encouraged states to issue nonbinding resolutions urging the Supreme Court to reconsider the decision. However, MR field director Arthur Schaper notes that even conservative politicians have shown reluctance to take such action.
In a recent statement, Schaper outlined MR’s central argument: The Obergefell decision is fundamentally flawed due to “the most unfounded legal reasoning.” The ruling, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, relied on the judicial fiction of substantive due process, which has led to numerous problematic Supreme Court precedents. Kennedy further claimed a right to same-sex marriage despite the Constitution not defining marriage.
Schaper asserts that Obergefell “undermined democratic processes, imposed an unjustified moral vision on the country, and ignored federalism.” He warns that faux marriage has accelerated declines in marriage rates, challenged religious liberty (particularly for bakers, photographers, and adoption agencies), promoted LGBT ideologies in schools and public institutions, and harmed public health and order.
Schaper insists that, similar to the Dobbs decision on abortion, Obergefell requires correction. He advocates returning the marriage issue to the states as constitutionalism dictates. MR has achieved some success in Idaho and North Dakota, yet Schaper reports that many rightist politicians have been indifferent or erected silent roadblocks. “Such cowardice,” he states, “exposes how many Republicans in red states are just liberal politicians masquerading as conservatives.”
The article explores what constitutes conservatism. British historian Keith Feiling described it as “not so much a fixed programme as a continuing spirit.” Political theorist Russell Kirk noted that conservatism is “a way of looking at the civil order,” with variations across nations and eras—such as 1950s U.S. conservatives who were staunchly anti-communist, or Soviet conservatives who aligned with communist ideals. Western European conservatives, including former British Prime Minister David Cameron, have embraced same-sex marriage acceptance and tolerance of abortion.
The article argues that the consistent definitions of conservatism and liberalism are:
– Conservatism: The desire to “conserve” the status quo.
– Liberalism: The desire to change the status quo.
Given this, it is reasonable to question whether same-sex marriage—a position now holding majority support in 65–70 percent of Americans—represents a conservative stance. Faux marriage has gained majority approval in many red states (47% in Mississippi and 50% in Arkansas). Thus, the claim by some conservative politicians that same-sex marriage is “a settled issue” may reflect an effort to conserve their own positions and power.
The article concludes that political realities stem from cultural shifts—a herculean task requiring understanding. It notes that the main argument against faux marriage was never effectively raised by traditionalists, and most judges were oblivious to it. The undermining of marriage did not begin with homosexual advocacy but evolved over time in post-Christian America. As the text states: “The FM-advocating sexual devolutionaries couldn’t have gotten to first base in Christendom. Public officials would’ve been embarrassed to pay them any mind. In post-Christian America, however, politicians are afraid to not mind their dictates.”
It ends with an immutable truth: If you don’t control the culture, the culture will control you.