We’ve all seen movies or read books where the storyline is about a spurned man or woman who, in the face of rejection or seeming mistreatment resorts to the mantra, “If I can’t have her/him, then nobody can.” Sadly, we are seeing that same idea play out in our culture when it comes to religion. The two most prominent examples of this in recent days are in the areas of same sex marriage and religious displays on public property.

Marriage has, throughout thousands of years of history, been limited primarily to one man and one woman. Certainly there have been times and places where polygamy has been been acceptable, but even then there was always at least one man and one woman, with the recognition that the opposite sexes have the ability to procreate and form a natural family. Laws and societies have always regarded this special relationship as worth protecting and nurturing.

In recent years, however, same-sex couples have articulated that they are missing out. At first they asserted that marriage laws were discriminatory because the laws treated gay couples differently than opposite sex couples, mostly in employment benefits and medical insurance situations. As a result, many states adapted their laws to grant same sex couples the same benefits as married couples under the law without changing the definition of marriage. But that was not enough. Sane sex couples asserted that they were still being treated differently than opposite sex couples because they were being denied “marriage” under the law. Even though they could have all the rights and benefits that the law affords to married couples, the fact that gay couples could not call themselves married was hurtful to them.

So, now they have succeeded in many states in getting the entire concept of marriage altered to include relationships that are utterly different in their very essence from what marriage has always been. Essentially, same sex couples issued an ultimatum: if we can’t have it, nobody can. In their minds, if the law does not allow them to walk down the aisle and call themselves “married,” then everyone has to give up that act, even though it is an historically religious act between one man and one woman and is sacred as such to most God-fearing people.

In a similar way, this week liberal haters of religion once again issued an ultimatum. This time the stage was Oklahoma City. It seems a politician gifted the city with a sculpture of the Ten Commandments a few years ago, and the sculpture has been displayed on the state capitol’s grounds. A hate group from New York challenged the display, but the display was allowed to remain since it was a gift to the city and was not initiated by city personnel. The haters from New York then went about raising money from other haters to hire a sculptor to make a statute of Satan that it plans to gift to the city.

Lawmakers in Oklahoma City have said that they will not allow the sculpture to be displayed. Sadly, however, the haters are playing the all-too-familiar trump card: if we can’t have what we want, you cannot have what you want. Just as states have given in on the same sex marriage issue, Oklahoma City will find itself facing a tough decision: Do we give in and allow the statue to be displayed or do we take down the Ten Commandments sculpture? Sadly, I predict the latter will be the ultimate outcome.

Eventually, the same question is going to be asked with regard to same-sex marriage: Should a state in which an overwhelming majority opposes same sex marriage give in and allow it or should the state stop recognizing “marriage” all together? Sadly, the old sour-grapes adage is going to force that decision to have to be made. It is quite possible that, in our lifetime, “marriage” as we have known it will no longer exist under the secular law. I for one am not sure that is such a bad thing. After all, if we can’t have what we want, they shouldn’t either.