Marriage: noun, the legal union of a man and a woman. For all of human history — since God created male and female and established marriage in the Garden of Eden — this was the operating definition of marriage, even if the abuse of polygamy sometimes distorted it. Not anymore.

That’s how we began an article in July after 47 House Republicans joined every Democrat in voting for the laughably misnamed Respect for Marriage Act. That law shows it’s “respect” for an age-old, God-ordained institution by utterly redefining it.

Yesterday, 12 Republican senators likewise joined every Democrat in disrespecting the institution of marriage by moving forward on a full vote on the legislation. The act repeals the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, passed by bipartisan majorities and signed by Bill Clinton, though later struck down by the Supreme Court. The new bill further “provides statutory authority for same-sex and interracial marriages,” codifying the Court’s 2015 Obergefell decision discovering a constitutional “right” to same-sex marriage.

“Make no mistake,” Alliance Defending Freedom President Kristen Waggoner warned, “this bill will be used by officials and activists to punish and ruin those who do not share the government’s view on marriage.”

Senator Mike Lee agreed, calling the bill’s added provisions to protect religious liberty “woefully insufficient.” Now, says the Utah Republican, “Religious Americans will be subject to potentially ruinous litigation, while the tax-exempt status of certain charitable organizations, educational institutions, and non-profits will be threatened.” His amendment to fix those things was rejected.

Once the final version is passed by both chambers of Congress, Joe “Good Catholic” Biden will sign the bipartisan legislation. “Love is love,” he said in a statement, “and Americans should have the right to marry the person they love.”

As Mark Alexander put it: “Democrats are institutionalizing gender disorientation pathology, with the ultimate objective of undermining family and faith, the foundational pillars of Liberty. Liberty is the antithesis of the statist tyranny the Left relentlessly seeks.”

Obviously, public attitudes toward same-sex marriage have changed drastically since 1996. Back in those days, just 27% of Americans supported legalizing it. Now, that number is 71%, clearly including a lot of Christians who seem all too willing to reject the Scripture that defines their religion. Well, except for perhaps that repeated phrase in the book of Judges: “Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.”

Many conservatives simply believe the ship of marriage has sailed and we should move on to more pressing battles. But “abandoning the defense of natural marriage to resist the biological and sexual anarchy around us would be a mistake,” argues Joseph Rigney, president of Bethlehem College and Seminary in Minneapolis. “This is because natural marriage is the bulwark against biological and sexual anarchy. Our task is not to conserve the losses of the past, but to recover what we have lost.”

Opposing the redefinition of marriage is not borne of some sort of bigotry or hatred of homosexuals, as the Left has convinced most folks is the case. It comes from a desire to conserve an institution that has been deteriorating for decades. For many and often legitimate reasons, divorce has become far more prevalent. So has abandoning marriage entirely in favor of cohabitation. The resulting broken homes deeply hurt the men and women torn asunder and the children caught in the middle.

Marriage isn’t easy and can be downright hard. Joining two independent, imperfect people together in holy matrimony doesn’t always go well. It’s not a condemnation but rather a lament for the human condition to observe that the traditional, intact nuclear family no longer describes most American homes.

Look around at the culture and ask yourself if we’re better for it.

Conservatives and Christians have often failed at upholding family. That is, again, lamentable. But “progressives” have deliberately attacked the institution — at the expense of men, women, and children alike. So you’ll have to forgive us if we reject their formulation of “love” because the results of their “progressive” ways have manifestly resulted in a lot less love.