A recent lawsuit characterized Justice Anthony Kennedy’s 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges majority opinion as “legal fiction.” This assessment is well-founded. Chief Justice John Roberts had previously noted that the Constitution played no role in the ruling.
The driving force behind this shift, however, was growing public acceptance of faux marriage (FM). In fact, U.S. support for FM reached 53 percent in 2011 and rose to approximately 60 percent by 2015 when the Obergefell decision was issued.
This trend stemmed from a “conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind, and will through a planned psychological attack delivered via media propaganda,” as noted in a 1989 book titled After the Ball, which detailed strategies for sexual devolutionary (homosexual) advocacy.
Efforts to overturn Obergefell have been spearheaded by the activist group Mass Resistance (MR). MR has encouraged states to issue nonbinding resolutions urging the Supreme Court to reconsider the decision. Yet, as field director Arthur Schaper lamented, such actions face resistance even from conservative politicians who lack the courage to act.
In a recent statement, Schaper outlined MR’s central argument: The Obergefell ruling is fundamentally flawed due to its reliance on a judicial fiction of substantive due process. Kennedy’s decision improperly established a right to same-sex marriage without constitutional basis.
Schaper further contended that Obergefell “undermined democratic processes, imposed an unjustified moral vision on the country, and ignored federalism.” He warned that FM has accelerated declines in marriage rates, challenged religious liberty (affecting bakers, photographers, adoption agencies), spread LGBT ideology 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 marriage issues to the states as constitutionalism dictates.
MR has achieved some success with resolutions in Idaho and North Dakota. However, Schaper reports widespread indifference or silent obstacles from rightist politicians. “This cowardice,” he stated, “exposes how many Republicans in red states are just liberal politicians masquerading as conservatives.”
The article then examines the concept of conservatism. British historian Keith Feiling described it as “not so much a fixed program as a continuing spirit.” Political theorist Russell Kirk defined conservatism not as a political system but as “a way of looking at the civil order,” noting that conservatives across countries preserve different institutions and customs.
This fluidity is evident in historical contexts: In the 1950s, U.S. conservatives were anti-communist, while Soviet conservatives supported communist rule. Similarly, former British Prime Minister David Cameron expressed pride in his country’s 2014 acceptance of faux marriage and holds tolerant views on abortion, aligning with socialized medicine and statist policies common among Euro-cons.
Schaper’s observation suggests that FM acceptance now may be a conservative position given its near-universal support over nearly a generation and the shifting nature of conservatism. National approval for FM ranges from 65 to 70 percent, and it has majority support in most red states (47–50 percent in Mississippi and Arkansas).
The political realities described exist because of cultural shifts, which present a herculean task to address when misunderstood. Historically, marriage was considered a sacrament in Christendom, divinely ordained and protected by religious authority. However, government involvement gradually introduced secular marriages and divorce, reducing marriage to a legal contract. Today’s political reluctance to challenge same-sex marriage, despite its origins in conservative contexts, highlights the cultural transformation at play.
If you don’t control the culture, the culture will control you.
