The simplest answer, “yes and no,” is an intriguing paradox.
Since the U.S. Supreme Court decided in essence that the definition of marriage as a sacred union between one man and one woman was inherently “unconstitutional,” other stumbling blocks to true “marital equality” in society are on the brink of tumbling as well.
Not that the high court’s ruling necessarily opened a floodgate of contradictory, anti-traditional marriage ideology, it didn’t.
Such ideas have been around since the beginning. In the Old Testament in particular of the Christian Bible subjects like bestiality, i.e. “marital relations with animals” are dealt with and judged negatively in light of God’s created order. (See Leviticus Chapter 18, Exodus Chapter 22, and Deuteronomy Chapter 27)
Nevertheless, there are advocates who believe that denying a man a license to marry his dog for instance, “violates basic human rights.”
Predictably, the pedophile fringe is clamoring for the same consideration that homosexuals have been granted through the court’s ruling. Jack Minor of the Northern Colorado Gazette correctly notes:
“Using the same tactics used by ‘gay’ rights activists, pedophiles have begun to seek similar status arguing their desire for children is a sexual orientation no different than heterosexual or homosexuals.
Critics of the homosexual lifestyle have long claimed that once it became acceptable to identify homosexuality as simply an ‘alternative lifestyle’ or sexual orientation, logically nothing would be off limits.”
Homosexual “rights” supporters reject the moral equivalency between their movement for “marriage equality,” insisting as Minor writes, “…this would never happen.”
However, the arguments within the pedophile community are identical and the push to hoodwink and trepan society into accepting and even mainstreaming their dubious behavior has been given a degree of precedential “legitimacy” since the 5-4 decision of June 26, 2013.
Government never had any actual authority over what is clearly within the domain of “religion.” Marriage was never mentioned in the Constitution and consequently the Supreme Court had no real power to rule as it did. But once it (civil government) was allowed to assume power it did not possess the point it’s lead to was inevitable.
In the grand scheme of things, from a faith-based perspective, this societal deconstruction of the meaning of marriage matters. As the word of God puts it in Proverbs 14:34 – “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people.”
On the other hand, from a broader, eternal perspective, how the progressives in America and around the world define unions between same-sex partners, or pedophiles, or zoophiles and the like, matters little.
Those who posture themselves as enemies to God are always brought into submission. Always have been; always will be. (See 1 Corinthians Chapter 15)