Losing the Battle - Early in the movie "Gettysburg," General John Buford (played by Sam Elliott) makes an impassioned speech about the failed tactics of the Federal army and the need to take the high ground in the oncoming battle:

Meade will come in slowly, cautiously, new to command...And then, after Lee's army is entrenched behind nice fat rocks, Meade will attack finally, if he can coordinate the army. He'll attack right up that rocky slope, and up that gorgeous field of fire. And we will charge valiantly, and be butchered valiantly. And afterwards men in tall hats and gold watch fobs will thump their chest and say what a brave charge it was. Devin, I've led a soldier's life, and I've never seen anything as brutally clear as this.

Buford's calvary was able to halt the Confederate advance that day, and the Union army eventually won the battle, and the war.

Many conservatives are looking at the debate over gay marriage as the defining issue of our time. I agree with them that the institution of marriage should not be changed by judicial fiat. Surveying the battlefield, though, it's become clear that if conservatives continue using present tactics, we will lose the battle, and the war.

The major problem with the Federal Marriage Amendment is that it's too broad, and for that reason a number of rationales have arisen in support of it. Groups supporting the FMA cannot seem to decide what, exactly, the FMA will do.

The FMA will protect marriage
The FMA will prevent gay marriage
The FMA will define marriage

The problem for conservatives, especially religious conservatives, is that we are vulnerable to counter-arguments on at least two of these rationales, and have a weak argument for the third.

The FMA will protect marriage
A few months ago, pop star Britney Spears was married for just over 50 hours. When asked to explain her quick marriage and annullment, she explained the whole thing as being a joke between two friends. Conservatives said little about her pseudo-marriage, and lost an opportunity to bolster their credibility on the issue of protecting marriage. If marriage is sacred, then conservatives should treat it as such, regardless of the sexual orientation of those involved. The silence of conservatives and the church on the increasingly light treatment of marriage by society makes the entire idea of the FMA look more anti-gay than pro-marriage.

The church's behavior in the areas of cohabitation and divorce further erode its credibility on the issue of preserving marriage. George Barna has made a career out of surveying the Christian community and the general population about religious topics. His findings on how Christians treat divorce and cohabitation are disappointing:

--25% of born again Christians had cohabitated
--Born again Christians are just as likely to get divorced as are non-born again adults. Overall, 33% of all born again individuals who have been married have gone through a divorce, which is statistically identical to the 34% incidence among non-born again adults.

Barna found that over 90% of those who experienced divorce did so after making a committment to Christ, not before. These numbers show an appalling lack of respect for the institution of marriage among self-proclaimed followers of Christ, and is a huge weakness in the argument that an amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman would protect the institution. The church's behavior undercuts its argument, and it's a shame.

Given these numbers, it seems the greatest threat to marriage comes not from homosexuals, but from heterosexuals (including Christians) taking marriage lightly or cohabitating without getting married, yet still enjoying the legal benefits of such unions. At present, many companies and states allow heterosexual and homosexual couples that live together to share insurance policies, benefit packages and other "legal incidents" of marriage. Such arrangements weaken the institution, as people no longer see the necessity of entering into a legal marriage. In a sense, why should they? They are reaping the benefits of marriage without any of the commitment.

Such arrangements are not right, but society (and, I'm afraid, the church) has done little to nothing to prevent or condemn such relationships. Instead of fighting the weakening of marriage at the beginning, the FMA seems both a belated and half-hearted attempt at protecting the social institution we've allowed to decline for so many years.

The FMA will prevent gay marriage
This is the weakest of the arguments conservatives can use against gay marriage, as few have offered any substantial argument as to how gay marriage will harm heterosexual marriage. A group called ForMarriage offers Scandanavia as an example:

According to Stanley Kurtz of the Hoover Institution, before homosexual marriage was legalized in Scandinavia most couples married before the birth of their second child together. Since legalization, 80% of first born children are born out of wedlock and 60% of all subsequent children thereafter are born to unwed parents. What these numbers demonstrate is that same sex marriage further weakens marriage in all respects for heterosexuals. Children are less likely to be raised in a stable family environment, which has more of an effect on children than the "happiness" of the parents involved, according to numerous studies.

From Scandinavia's example, we can see that same sex marriage may not directly affect your marriage, but has serious consequences for your children and grandchildren. Your children will have a higher risk of bearing children out side of marriage and your grandchildren will be more likely to live in a single parent home.

Note the argument. It's gay marriage that will lead to societal breakdown and a loss of respect for marriage. Completely forgotten in this equation is the role of married heterosexuals in protecting the institution. People who come from healthy two-parent homes are more likely to have stable marriages themselves. Gay marriage may have further weakened marriage in Scandanavia, but judging from the fact that "most couples married before the birth of their second child," marriage was already under considerable strain. Once again, it's the failure of heterosexuals to value their own marriages that started the decline of the institution.

I'm not trying to be defeatist here. I do not think gay marriage is something society should pursue. I just think that before jumping on the FMA bandwagon, conservatives and Christians should take a hard, realistic look at what they've done to hurt marriage, and what they can do in their own communities and churches to put the institution back on the road to good health.

Viewing the FMA as an attempt to prevent gay marriage is not an effective argument. It makes the issue conservatives versus gays instead of focusing on the strongest of the three arguments I've offered.

The FMA defines marriage.
This is the strongest argument we can use to prevent gay marriage from being forced on society by an activist judiciary. Marriage has been defined as it now exists for millenia - the three major world religions - Christianity, Islam and Judaism - all define marriage as a sacred covenant between the sexes. What Christians and conservatives need to do is turn the argument back on proponents of gay marriage - who are you to try and redefine a social institution that's thousands of years old with a few court orders? At least, we should demand legislative action before the definition of marriage is changed.

What Christians and conservatives need to realize is that this isn't a moral issue. There is a moral component, but at heart, this is a political fight. And we're losing it. We live in a time when moral and theological arguments have little weight in the public square, and we're still speaking the language of morality and theology. Those "languages" are entirely appropriate and have a useful purpose, but if we want to win a political fight, we have to start thinking like politicians.

That means looking at the issue with a clarity that is so far lacking and discarding the arguments and approaches that won't work. That means getting rid of the idea of the FMA and gearing up for a long fight instead of a quick solution that won't work in the end. If this is a battle worth fighting, then it's a battle worth winning. And winning this one will take the patience and determination of a General Grant, not the all-or-nothing approach of a Pickett's Charge.

What to Do
To start, Christians and conservatives have to get serious about fixing marriage. That means ending the high divorce rate in churches, getting serious about cohabitation and condemning all who make a mockery of marriage with multiple or "joke" marriages. It also means pressuring the state to preserve marriage by ending the practice of giving marriage-like rights to cohabitating couples.

Until the church takes a stand against heterosexuals who harm marriage, it will have little credibility saying the institution will be harmed by homosexuals.

Then, we need to begin electing people to public office who are serious about the judiciary. The tyranny of an unelected, unrepresentative and unaccountable judiciary needs to be stopped, and we have the power to do it. Christians need to get involved with politics, even when so-called "moral" issues aren't involved. That means electing people to the presidency who will appoint constructionist judges and electing senators who will confirm those nominated. No more making law from the bench or putting the desires of a loud minority above established law.

Christians who are involved in politics need to stop seeing laws like the FMA as the solution to societal problems. Making laws to solve social issues will only work as long as Christians have the power to make those laws. Passage of the FMA will set a precedent - social issues can be resolved through Constitutional amendment. It won't always be Christians that have the power to make such laws. Is this a precedent we want to set?

Finally, Christians need to continue the work they were put on earth to do. As Hugh Hewitt says in his book "In But Not Of:"

the most important jobs in America may be far less significant than any ministry that provides the context for a conversion from disbelief to belief. You don't believe that? Then you don't believe the gospel, and you don't believe Christ.

Society is made up of people, and the best way to change society is to change the hearts of people. Laws are limited in their power. God is not limited in His.