A panel of Christian leaders sounded off on the current state marriage and the distorted view young adults have of its meaning at the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission's National Conference held this week in Nashville.

Today's generation has "a romanticized vision and understanding of marriage where marriage is just basically the government's affirmation of romantic love between two willing people and some sort of commitment there," said Trevin Wax, managing editor of The Gospel Project.

Wax declared that this definition is not only dominate in popular culture, but "I think that sort of reduced understanding of marriage is already prevalent in evangelical churches."

The panelists explained that the only way to counter this "reduced understanding" is for churches to start teaching and re-teaching what love and marriage means in the context of the Bible and society.

"It's time to start rebuilding marriage. Stop talking about defending it and rebuild it," John Stonestreet, a fellow of the Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview, told conference goers. "There's not much left to defend on a cultural level."

Though polls have shown that many singles desire to be married, the panelists agreed the romanticized belief of what marriage is has led many young adults to avoid commitment and delay marriage.

Lindsay Swartz, manager of Christian women's resource blog TrueWomen.com, explained that many young adults are so fixated on finding romantic love that they are afraid to "pull the trigger" because "they don't want to commit to something because something better might come along and they don't want to settle."

Children of divorced parents also tend to delay marriage, Stonestreet said.

He opined "I think one of the reasons why marriage has declined is because you do have some well-intentioned Millennials who have been through the trauma – and they'll use that word – trauma of divorce when they were kids who don't want to make that mistake. The irony is though they ramp up the romantic new definition of marriage in the process of trying to avoid that – so we're going to co-habitat ahead of time, we'll give this a trial run, we're going to post-pone and delay here until we're absolutely sure that whatever romantic longings and feelings we have for each other is going to be good enough to sustain us over the long haul. So instead of seeing that part of the divorce culture came about from this (romanticized) re-definition of marriage, they're actually clinging even fiercer to that redefinition as they're trying not to repeat the mistakes of their parents."

Those who are married have no concept of the social and personal responsibilities that come with the union, he said. Wax noted that among older generations, marriage was "oriented towards procreation" as well as family stability and the common good. Newer generations, he believes, have moved away from that notion and are more private.

"The destruction of our understanding of marriage and family has real consequences for our kids, our economy and for the future of society as a whole." said Eric Teetsel, executive director of the Manhattan Declaration. Teetsel said scientific studies shows children do best in a home with a biological mom and dad. When children are raised under a different set of circumstances, Teetsal said it costs taxpayers "billions and billions of dollars" to subsidize those broken families.

Panelists agreed the solution is better teaching. Wax admonished church leaders for not reaching out to singles in their congregations. "We now live in a culture where I think the stats [now show] more people are single then are not single especially in a lot of urban environments, especially when you look at younger generations. The church has been slow to really wrestle with that reality because that's not what we have prepared for," he said.

Both Swartz and Stonestreet urged the church to give young adults a view of faithful, long-lasting marriages. "I would just tell churches to teach it and model it and invite singles in and young married couples too and pray for it," advised Swartz.

"One of the things we do in church is we divvy out everybody out by generation," Stonestreet said. "One way to model (successful marriage)t is to put together generations."

Stonestreet, Wax, Swartz and Teetsel were panelists for a talk entitled "Millennials And Marriage: Evaluating The Younger Generation's Views On Sexuality And Marriage" held on Monday, the first day of the three-day conference. The discussion was one of several discussions about the gospel, homosexuality and the future of marriage hosted by the ERLC National Conference.

WASHINGTON — Gay marriage proponents will not allow for religious freedom of their political opponents because their belief system does not allow for the fact that dissenters can be reasonable people of goodwill, Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, argued at the Institute on Religion and Democracy's 2014 Diane Knippers Memorial Lecture.

Most of those arguing in favor of redefining marriage to include same-sex couples do not understand, or even know, the arguments of those who oppose the redefinition of marriage, George claimed. They assume there are no reasonable arguments against gay marriage and those who oppose it are simply driven by hatred of gays.

"The whole [gay marriage] argument was and is that the idea of marriage as the union of husband and wife lacks a rational basis and amounts to nothing more than 'bigotry,' reflecting animus against a certain group of people," he said. "Therefore, no reasonable person of goodwill, we are told, can dissent from the liberal position on sex and marriage, any more than a reasonable person of goodwill could support racial segregation and subordination. You've heard the analogy drawn a thousand times. And this is because marriage, according to the re-definers, consists principally of companionship — the companionship of people committed to mutual affection and care. Any distinctions beyond this one they condemn as baseless."

The idea of marriage as a conjugal relationship between a husband and wife has a long history, George explained, as a variety of philosophers and religious traditions have recognized its importance for society, including Plato, Aristotle and Gandhi. But those who wish to redefine marriage seek to throw out that rich tradition while not even understanding the arguments in favor of that tradition. Instead, he continued, they understand marriage to be simply based upon romance, but do not put forth arguments as to why government should recognize romantic relationships.

Same-sex marriage proponents "uncritically, then, not knowing what they're rejecting, not knowing what the alternative is, conceive marriage precisely as sexual-romantic companionship or domestic partnership, laying aside, ignoring altogether, its defining social purpose, imagining somehow, I suppose, that the law has some interest in people's romantic relationships just as such. What that interest could be, none of my friends on the other side have ever managed to actually express a view about. And yet, we are told, marriage must be 'expanded,' or, in truth, redefined, or, perhaps in greater truth, abolished or replaced with, a conception of 'marriage' as sexual romantic companionship or domestic partnership, because they can't fathom how any reasonable person of goodwill can understand it in any other way," George said.

Since those proponents of redefining marriage do not know or understand the arguments in favor of the traditional definition of marriage, he continued, they jump to the conclusion that there is no rational reason to disagree with them. And since those same-sex marriage proponents view those who dissent from the liberal orthodoxy as bigots, or the equivalent of racists, they have no reason to support the religious freedom of dissenters.

While some liberals and conservatives believe there can be a "grand bargain" in which gay marriage is allowed and the religious freedom of dissenters is supported, George pointed out that he has long argued that could never be the case, because liberal secularism is a comprehensive doctrine in competition with other comprehensive doctrines.

"Liberal secularism," he said, "never was and never will be what the late John Rawls depicted it as being and hoped it would be, namely, a purely political doctrine, as opposed to what he called a comprehensive view (a view of human nature, meaning, dignity, and destiny) that competes with other comprehensive views.

"Nowhere is the reality of contemporary liberalism as a comprehensive doctrine, a secularist religion, more plainly on display than in the moral-cultural struggle over marriage and sexual morality. Liberal secularism will tolerate other comprehensive views so long as they present no challenge or serious threat to its own most cherished values. The Amish are probably safe. But when they do, they must be smashed, in the name, for example, of 'equality' or preventing 'dignitarian harm,' and their faithful must be reduced to a dhimmi-like status in respect of opportunities, in employment, contracting, and other areas, that, from the point of view of liberal secularist doctrine, cannot be made available to them if they refuse to conform themselves to the demands of liberal ideology."

There are some liberals, George added, that do still value religious freedom, tolerance and diversity who have spoken out against the liberals who have sought to punish or restrict the religious freedom of those who dissent from the liberal orthodoxy on marriage and sexuality. But he believes those tolerant liberals will ultimately lose their battle against intolerant liberals.

"Of course, there will be some within the liberal community, Rawlsians and others, who will try to make some room for meaningful dissent, even in practice and not just in thought and speech. And they will make various arguments, principled and practical, for why [liberals] should avoid being too draconian in its treatment of heretics and dissenters. But they will lose the battle," he said.

Day one of a three-day conference hosted by the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Commission discussing how Christians should react to the ongoing battle between those framing the homosexual lifestyle debate as a civil rights issue and those supporting what they believe to be biblical moral values, including traditional marriage, featured plenty of fireworks — most happening online through social media.

More than 1,200 are attending the ERLC conference which began on Monday. The conference, themed "The Gospel, Homosexuality, and the Future of Marriage" is taking place in Nashville and offered by live stream over the Internet.

"Gotta be careful of making idols out of marriage and procreation when Scripture / Christ do not do so. #ERLC2014," tweeted Rachel Held Evans, author of Faith Unraveled. Evans was one of several Twitter users dishing up a steady volley of criticism over the ERLC conference.

However, Dr. Richard Land, former president of ERLC, observed that the conference is primarily serving a Southern Baptist audience concerned about its response to the political climate regarding gay issues, including the growing acceptance of gay marriage.

"First of all, the gay community is never going to find the Evangelical response satisfactory because we're not going to accept their behavior," Land told The Christian Post. "But I think the first day of the conference did a good job of putting this in the context that same-sex attraction and behavior is but one of many aspects of the fall [of mankind]."

Land, who is the president of Southern Evangelical Seminary in Charlotte, North Carolina, and the executive editor of CP, went on to explain, "All sexual behavior that is outside of heterosexual marriage is a manifestation of the fall, and the fact that we are fallen creatures and this is the way fallen creatures behave. This is what God sent Christ to redeem us from — [as shown] from Genesis 3:15 forward.

"We are not singling out same-sex attraction. It was very clear in the conference on the first day, that this is one of the manifestations of the fall along with adultery, living together without matrimony, pornography, etc., etc., all of it."

Zack Ford, editor of Think Progress' LGBT section, who attended the event, was tweeting at a steady clip from the gay perspective.

"Ironic that @EricTeetsel and panel are ENCOURAGING marriage when we gays WANT to marry, but they oppose that. #ERLC2014," tweeted Ford.

Land said the Christian community is concerned about "the rapidity with which Christians have been engulfed by this tidal wave of same-sex marriage imposed by the courts, and they are looking for answers as to how they can respond in a biblical and Christian way that is faithful to the Gospel. Clearly this conference has touched a nerve and has met a need within the Body."

When asked by CP about the argument made by some people critical of the conference, including Evans, saying that it was not inclusive of gays in participation, Land answered, "As long as you have Scripture, you have all the resources you need. I would suspect that most of the people at the conference and most who planned it would be upset if Rachel Held Evans was pleased. If she were pleased with the conference most of the people there would be unhappy."

The city of Coeur d'Alene in Idaho has reportedly realized that a for-profit wedding chapel owned by Christian ministers Donald Knapp and his wife, Evelyn, can refuse to perform same-sex marriages without violating "non-discrimination" laws.

The city earlier maintained that its "non-discrimination" ordinance requires the Knapps, who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies because the courts have overridden Idaho's voter-approved constitutional amendment that affirmed marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

The couple needed to be a not-for-profit to be exempt from the ordinance §9.56, which bars facilities of public accommodation from discrimination, the city had said.

However, Coeur d'Alene city attorney Mike Gridley now says the ordinance doesn't specify non-profit or for-profit, according to Boise State Public Radio.

"After we've looked at this some more, we have come to the conclusion they would be exempt from our ordinance because they are a religious corporation," Gridley was quoted as saying.

The Hitching Post reorganized earlier this month as a "religious corporation," according to court filings, which includes owners' description as having deeply held beliefs that marriage should be between a man and a woman, the Public Radio reports.

Jeremy Tedesco, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, a legal organization, told The Christian Post earlier that while Coeur d'Alene has an ordinance saying that under "public accommodation" businesses cannot discriminate, state law offers a possible exemption for the Knapps.

"In addition to our federal claims (i.e. First Amendment), our complaint brings a cause of action under the Idaho Free Exercise of Religion Protected Act," Tedesco said. "[Under] Idaho Code § 73–401 et seq., this state law says 'government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion ...'"

ADF attorneys have filed a federal lawsuit and a motion for temporarily restraining Coeur d'Alene city officials from forcing them to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies.

The city is "unconstitutionally coercing" the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies "in violation of their religious beliefs, their ordination vows, and their consciences," the lawsuit states.

The couple, both in their 60s, can either violate their religious convictions and ministerial vows by performing gay wedding ceremonies or follow their religious convictions and vows by declining to perform such ceremonies and face up to 180 days in jail and up to $1,000 in fines, it adds.

"Worse, each day the Knapps decline to perform a requested same-sex wedding ceremony, they commit a separate and distinct misdemeanor, subject to the same penalties. Thus, if the Knapps decline a same-sex wedding ceremony for just one week, they risk going to jail for over 3 years and being fined $7,000," the lawsuit explains.

According to the ordinance, this discrimination can include denying "any person because of sexual orientation and/or gender identity/expression, the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges of any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement."

A North Carolina county judge resigned on Monday because he did not want to violate his Christian faith and perform same-sex marriages, which are now permitted under the state's law.

With the news that North Carolina's same-sex marriage ban was struck down by a federal judge on Oct. 10, Judge Gilbert Breedlove, a 57-year-old magistrate in Swain County and also an ordained minister, could not, in good faith, be forced to conduct same-sex courthouse weddings when his Christian belief tells him that a marriage is only between a man and a woman.

"It was my only option," Breedlove told Citizen-Times. "We were directed we had to perform the marriages, and that was just something I couldn't do because of my religious beliefs."

Although Breedlove has been a magistrate for the past 24 years, he said the law, which judges are responsible for interpreting, no longer stands with his beliefs.

"I was Christian when I started," Breedlove said. "Then, the law didn't require me to perform something that was against my religious belief. Now that law has changed it's requirements."

Although Breedlove could claim he had two jobs as a pastor and a magistrate, the majority of his income came from his judgeship. However, he said he is not worried about his financial future because he put his full faith in the Lord.

"That's one of the things about being a Christian," Breedlove said. "You are able to serve the Lord and the Lord will provide."

The Bryson City community in which Breedlove served, is located next to a Cherokee Indian reservation and his wife was even raised a Cherokee. Breedlove's affinity for Jesus and Native Americans led him to help translate the Bible into the Choctaw Indian language. Having been a part of the Bible translation effort and being a part-time pastor, Breedlove said he is confident in the biblical truth about marriage.

"The whole Bible from front to end states that a marriage is between a man and a wife," he said. "Any other type of sexual activity other than that is what is defined as fornication."

With previous reports indicating that other North Carolina magistrates have also stepped down due to their objection to the state's new law permitting same-sex marriages, Breedlove said he believes more magistrates will continue stepping down as more same-sex couples look to wed by Christian magistrates. The state has issued over 600 same-sex wedding licenses in 60 of the state's counties.

Last Thursday, a Rockingham County magistrate named John Kallam Jr. issued his resignation and claimed that allowing gay marriage "would desecrate a Holy Institution established by God Himself."

"When I took my oath of office, I understood I would be required to perform weddings and have done so throughout my tenure," Kallam wrote in his resignation letter. "I did not however take that oath with any understanding that I would be required to marry same-sex couples."

Chris Sgro, executive director of Equality North Carolina, a statewide LGBT advocacy group, group said that although the group doesn't want judges to feel like they have to resign if they disapprove of the law, he said they at least be willing to uphold the duties required by law.

"This is part of an effort to hype up a few small cases," Sgro said. "If you hold a job or position that serves the public or the state, then you have to carry out the duties of that job. Hundreds and hundreds of people are being married by employees of the state across North Carolina with no problem."

Idaho couple Donald and Evelyn Knapp, ordained ministers and owners of the Hitching Post Lakeside Chapel of Coeur d'Alene, are facing thousands of dollars in fines and possible jail time for refusing to host gay wedding ceremonies, which the city claims violates its anti-discrimination ordinance. The couple has since filed their business as a religious organization, which means they might be saved by an Idaho law that protects religious freedom.

Jeremy Tedesco, senior legal counsel for the Scottsdale, Arizona-based Alliance Defending Freedom legal organization, told The Christian Post that while Coeur d'Alene has an ordinance saying that under "public accommodation" businesses cannot discriminate, state law offeres a possible exemption for the Knapps.

"In addition to our federal claims (i.e. First Amendment), our complaint brings a cause of action under the Idaho Free Exercise of Religion Protected Act," Tedesco said. "[Under] Idaho Code § 73–401 et seq., this state law says 'government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion ...'"

Tedesco recently filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Knapps in district court, as well as a motion to provide immediate relief.

"We are now waiting for the court to decide whether to grant or deny our request for a temporary restraining order," Tedesco said. "By filing a motion for a temporary restraining order, we are asking the court to act as soon as possible and order the city not to enforce its ordinance against the Knapps while our case proceeds."

City officials, who did not provide comment to CP by press time, have argued that the Hitching Post is in violation of ordinance §9.56, which bars facilities of public accommodation from discrimination.

According to the ordinance, this discrimination can include denying "any person because of sexual orientation and/or gender identity/expression, the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges of any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement."

When asked by CP if religious institutions such as churches and church-owned properties are exempt from ordinances like the one in Coeur d'Alene, Tedesco said, "Same-sex marriage advocates have always said that pastors would 'never' be forced to perform same-sex marriages. Well, 'never' came quick as pastors are being threatened with jail and criminal fines for not participating in ceremonies that contradict the definition of marriage."

He continued, "No one is safe — even religious institutions currently exempt under this ordinance and others are on notice. It's foolish to depend on the very same politicians and bureaucrats who have already threatened pastors with six months in jail and $1,000 per day to respect anyone's freedom."

"Under this ordinance, our clients face up to up to 180 days in jail and up to a $1,000 fine each day they follow their religious beliefs and ministerial vows and decline to perform a same-sex wedding ceremony."

Speaking about the Knapps decision to file as a religious organization in an effort to gain exemption from performing gay wedding ceremonies at their chapel, Coeur d'Alene Councilman Dan Gookin told Fox News, "I understand that the way the law is currently written right now that the religious freedom has a priority. It trumps that other desire of mine to see more equality in that area."