Welcome to Breakpoint, a daily look, and an ever-changing culture through the lens of unchanging truth.

For the Colson Center, I'm John Stone Street.

Ten years ago today, June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court granted same-sex couples the legal right to marriage.

The infamous of Bergerfeld v. Hodges' ruling has proven to be among our nation's most

consequential and harmful decisions, especially for children. Even though, to borrow a phrase

originally written about Roe v. Wade, its ruling in the case, quote, is not constitutional law

and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be, courts across the nation and government

officials still have treated Obergefell as if it accomplished much more than it actually did.

In Obergefell, the court asserted that civil marriage is not about the procreative union

or potential of husband and wife, but instead, marriage is a government device to give benefits to

adult companions. However, numerous courts since have ruled that because marriage has been historically

associated with child rearing, Obergefell must require states to also give licensed same-sex

partners legal access to and custody of children, otherwise not theirs. Now, of course, same-sex partners legal access to and custody of children, otherwise not theirs.

Now, of course, same-sex couples cannot procreate. So advocates pointed to reproductive technologies

as the means for fulfilling this imaginary mandate. Thus, to satisfy the demands that same-sex couples

had for children, children are now bought and sold through

IVF and surrogacy. Mothers are rented for their wounds. Fathers are reduced to sources of genetic

material. Human connection is manufactured, not created through meaningful relations, and the family

is drained of its profound nature as God intended it to have, as well as its significance,

a significance that historically warranted authority and immunity from this kind of legal

manipulation. While the court may not have intended the anti-human techno regime that has resulted

from Obergefell, it did leave wide open these legal questions. Rather than

...