It is so important we do not get sucked into the rhetoric of inevitability that surrounds the debate about changing the definition of marriage.



Since when did people of faith ever believe anything was inevitable?



Even in the US, where the legal definition of marriage is under great pressure, the battle (sorry to use military metaphors but we are in a battle) has taken a positive turn in the past two weeks.



Candidates supporting marriage between a man and a woman did exceptionally well at the recent mid-term elections for the US Congress and in state gubernatorial races.



The National Organisation for Marriage, which has emerged as a well-organised peak group to defend marriage in the US, spent more than $200,000 on television and direct mail to support successful US Senate Candidates Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Tom Cotton of Arkansas, both supporters of man-woman marriage.



According to NOM, it organised extensive grassroots efforts which resulted in the election of Senators Joni Ernst (Indiana) and Ben Sasse (New England), in addition to Governor Sam Brownback (Kansas) and Senator Pat Roberts (Kansas).



NOM says it actively opposed Richard Tisei (Massachusetts), Carl DeMaio (California) and Monica Wehby, the GOP (Grand Old Party - Republican) candidate for US Senate in Oregon. Tisei and Wehby were defeated.



With 32 US States having embraced same sex marriage (predominantly through judge-made law, not democracy), same-sex marriage was supposed to be inevitable.



Yet voting patterns in the mid-term elections have shown otherwise.



The more the wider public understand that changing the definition of marriage abolishes the right of a child to her or his biological mother and father, the more people are waking up to the fact that this is a reform which denies social justice for our most vulnerable.



Sure children are motherless or fatherless because of tragedy or desertion, but they should not be made so because of state-sanctioned social policy.



In Australia there is no need to change the definition of marriage because there is no discrimination against same-sex couples in our law.



In other good news from America, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals last week handed down a ruling upholding marriage amendments in four states that define marriage solely as the union of one man and one woman.



Whilst American victories for changing the definition of marriage are loudly trumpeted in the Australian media, to my knowledge neither of these two major setbacks for the gay ‘marriage’ juggernaut were reported here.



I suspect the author Philip K. Dick was not a Christian. I recently came across this comment attributed to him.



“Just because something bears the aspect of the inevitable, one should not therefore, go along willingly with it.”



Christians, of all people should know this.