I guess it depends on one’s perspective. I am not saying there won’t be some kind of perversion of the institution of marriage...but as far as I know, no civilization has lasted that has embraced and celebrated sodomy.
The namesake city, for instance—Sodom. Or the Greeks. Or Roman Empire.
And the United States is not immune—as she has continued to murder unborn innocents, enslave millions into dependence, and now seemingly moving toward a celebration of perversion, she will also suffer dire consequences.
Revival is what is needed: a spiritual awakening, and God is capable of saving and redeeming a people out of this wickedness. A remnant, if you will, can stand and be witnesses to His truth.
So “lost” might be accurate in a limited political sense, but not all of life is political. We are creatures beyond political ones.
Rush knows that, deep down, I think...Certainly we should.
One possible solution I have thought about is for the name of the institution to be changed to “Holy Matrimony”....I know that is not a “new” term, but the secular world can embrace “marriage” all they want, perhaps. We who follow Christ ought to take the vows seriously and recognize that Holy Matrimony is only between a man and woman.
By the way, I believe the church as a whole was blind to the slippery slope when easy divorces became available...it didn’t really take a stand for keeping couples together, and when marriage became easy to dissolve (”we just don’t love each other any more” nonsense) the churches of America should have been stronger in resisting this trend.
Well that’s all true, but it has nothing to do with what Rush was talking about. He was merely observing that the battle has been lost.