On Thursday, July 6, the New York Court of Appeals ruled against same-sex marriage, demonstrating again why both the people and the courts of the United States are still unwilling to redefine marriage. The Georgia Supreme Court also issued a decision the same day, ruling unanimously that same-sex marriage has no equal protection under the law. The 4-2New York decision left the Massachusetts appellate court as the sole defender of the "right" to same-sex marriage. And efforts are underway, even in Massachusetts, to reverse this decision in a forthcoming 2008 referendum. Four other states have court cases pending-California, Connecticut, Maryland and Iowa. New Jersey has a particularly intriguing case that may offer the same-sex marriage advocates their best hope of all, given the history of that state's progressive interpretation of the law.

What are we to make of all these court decisions? First, if you are keeping a score card you know that forty states have passed laws that clearly restrict marriage to a man and a woman. Furthermore, no high court or legislature has granted gays the right to marriage except for Massachusetts. The evidence is that same-sex marriage is not going to become widely accepted, at least legally, anytime soon. Even advocates for this change admit it may take a decade or two at this point. What seemed so certain just a few years ago has been, for now, stopped. No one seriously disagrees on this point.

Second, advocates of same-sex marriage are not going to go away. We can expect this contentious debate to continue for our foreseeable lifetime. Even as I write, national groups are regrouping and deciding how to fight this battle on the next front. Some even doubt that this debate is the right one to fight right at this moment, given the political and social context of America. Expect new approaches to surface in the next few years.

Third, you can expect that the advocates of same-sex marriage will continue to press their most effective argument, namely that this is really an issue about the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law. And the most effective emotional weapon in this effort is to compare laws barring gay marriage to laws that once barred interracial marriage. The New York Times agreed with Chief Judge Judith Kaye's comments on July 6, given in her written dissent, that future generations will read the history of this debate and conclude that the New York court decision was "an unfortunate misstep." Maybe, but then maybe not. God alone knows history before it happens.

Fourth, most Americans agree, in very large number actually, with this conclusion: Gays and lesbians have the right in America to live as they choose, but that fact does not mean they have the right to redefine marriage for an entire society.

Fifth, marriage is undergoing change in how we understand it. Judge Judith Kaye, in her written dissent, argued that marriage has changed over the course of time. She sees it as an institution that is changing much the way slavery changed, to use the most commonly invoked parallel institution. What the judge fails to see, as do almost all homosexual advocates, is that slavery was condemned by various moral laws, human customs and ancient standards, long before it was legally abolished. There was both a biblical and common law basis for abolishing slavery. There is none for homosexual marriage as a fundamental legal right.

Sixth, in the present social context the state of marriage as an institution, and most marriages in particular, will not likely improve as a result of these legal decisions. Things will only change more permanently, both in terms of marriage as an institution and as a real life shared experience between a man and woman, as hearts and minds are changed. Given the large-scale rejection of the role of moral law, and evidence of declining religious faith and practice among those who are under age twenty-five, I expect the day will still come when the laws limiting marriage to one man and one woman will be altered. America, for sure, is not Europe, but the cultural flow in the secular West is plainly in this direction and it is a pretty steady flow even though stop gaps do happen now and then. Over the course of the last three years the legal direction has favored those who wish to keep marriage as we have known it for centuries. But what about the moral issue that is in the heart of ordinary people? Are we strong enough as a culture to resist this continued tampering with ancient interpretations that are plainly rooted in natural law and the Judeo-Christian tradition? I honestly doubt it.

Yesterday I heard two different talk show hosts discuss this New York court decision. The first was the conservative Jewish thinker, Dennis Prager. I deeply respect Prager for his sane and provocative ability to frame issues simply and ethically. Prager argued, quite correctly I believe, that the chief mistake of the liberals in these debates has been to advance the issues of abortion and same-sex marriage primarily through the courts. By this means they "awoke the sleeping giant," namely millions of religious conservatives all across this country. Even some in the Democratic Party have recognized this fact and are seeking to address it. Whether liberal advocates like this or not, the facts plainly support Prager's observation. Most conservative evangelical Christians were clearly content to stay out of the political arena until the courts began to frame the law in more socially progressive, and morally reprehensible ways in the 1960s and 70s. Many Christians saw this as forcing the people to conform to the rule of the court rather than allowing the people making their own laws through their elected representatives at the state and national level. I think this point is irrefutable, even if the Christian nationalists have taken their rhetoric and strategy too far, which I believe in some cases they have. In light of these self-evident facts I wonder if liberals will continue to advance their case primarily through the courts. I expect that some will deploy new strategies that go more directly after both the state legislatures and the congress. I also expect, for now at least, that they will fail. The polls still favor the more conservative approaches on these contentious issues, and it will apparently take some time for this to change.

This leads me to the second talk show host that I heard briefly on July 6, Michael Medved. Michael Medved is also Jewish. (Two of my favorite talk shows hosts are Jewish, which I think says something powerful about the inability of many Christians to speak well to the wider culture in the popular venues of everyday talk media. We need to think about this more deeply and develop a strategy for change if we are to impact our culture more effectively.) Medvid is primarily a pop culture critic. He is also a very engaging fellow who began his public career as a movie critic but has since become a best-selling writer and speaker. His point on his July 6 program grew out of a caller's direct question. The person asked: "How can you cite the obvious examples of moral slippage in our society day after day while at the same time you remain so optimistic about the future of America?" His answer stunned me. Medved argued that this is not the first time America was going down such a road to moral breakdown and social chaos. He cited evidence of similar past trends that had been reversed by one dynamic force with our republic. Medved, to my surprise, argued that one thing, and one thing only, had reversed these tides in the past-a national religious revival. He particularly argued that it had been evangelical Christians in general, and the Christian church in particular, that was at the forefront of these past nation-changing revivals. He noted that these spiritual movements had literally saved the nation on two previous occasions. Medved concluded by telling his listeners that a Third Great Awakening was desperately needed now. He even suggested that he saw evidence that it could be coming sooner than later.

I was, quite honestly, rebuked by Michael Medved's penetrating and insightful answer. I sometimes grow quite weary of suggesting that revival is a uniquely American solution to moral and spiritual destruction as a society. But this is a historic fact. And as I reflected upon the great cultural struggle that we now face regarding the meaning of marriage I was reminded by Michael Medved, of all people, that we Christians need to pray for revival more faithfully, talk about revival more openly, and positively expect revival can come from the hand of a gracious and pardoning God who reveals himself as the one who loves to show mercy. "Is anything too hard for the Lord?"

O pray for revival more faithfully, talk about revival more openly, and positively expect revival can come from the hand of a gracious and pardoning God who reveals himself as the one who loves to show mercy. "Is anything too hard for the Lord?"