As the 2024 election looms, discussion of the platforms of the political parties has faded somewhat as the candidates in tight races vie for an upper hand. From the beginning, the 2024 campaign has been more about character traits and personal competence than the great issues of war and peace.

The nation remains sharply divided on many questions, particularly the issues of faith, family, and freedom that have animated Christians and others engaged in today’s politics. The drama on that front has been heightened due to perceptions that the 2024 Republican platform is substantially weaker on social issues than its predecessors. Last month, we examined whether that is true at the grassroots level regarding sanctity of life issues. But what about the sanctity of marriage?

Here, a review of the state Republican platforms reveals a much more complicated picture. When the 2024 platform was unveiled and ratified in Milwaukee in a rigidly controlled, rapid-fire session, reporting suggested it marked a retreat from GOP orthodoxy on marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The leadership of the Log Cabin Republicans, which supports the redefinition of marriage adopted by a 5-4 Supreme Court in the June 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, hailed what it saw as a mere acknowledgement of reality. Log Cabin leader Charles Moran told NBC News that the new platform “means the party has ‘come full circle’ and is intentionally inclusive of same-sex couples.” The author of that same article questioned, however, whether the platform’s language endorses the redefinition of marriage or merely masks a repackaging of “the same old stance.”

The simplification of the language is undeniable, a feature of the comparatively brief 2024 platform across the board. On abortion, the 2016 platform contained nearly two dozen policy prescriptions on questions of legal protection for the unborn, federal abortion funding, and alternatives. On the definition of marriage, the 2016 platform critiqued the Supreme Court decision, then merely a year old, saying, “In Obergefell, five unelected lawyers robbed 320 million Americans of their legitimate constitutional authority to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The Court twisted the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment beyond recognition.” That 2016 language is now gone. The new platform, in contrast, tersely states that the aim of the GOP is to “promote a Culture that values the Sanctity of Marriage, the blessings of childhood, the foundational role of families, and supports working parents. We will end policies that punish families.”

The questions recur, “What is a Culture that values the Sanctity of Marriage?” “What does the sanctity of an institution represent?” From a legal standpoint, the redefinition of marriage inaugurated by the one-vote majority in Obergefell has been cemented by congressional action. The passage of the Respect for Marriage Act in December 2022 was accomplished with the support of 12 Republican senators and 39 GOP House members, meaning roughly three-quarters of the GOP caucus opposed legislation that now requires the states to recognize the marriage of any two individuals deemed valid by another state. Public opinion polls have signaled support for same-sex marriage, though support from self-identified Republicans recently dropped below 50%.

But the debate is not ending, and one salient reason is that — in terms of both cultural and legal practice — marriage and sexuality clearly do not occupy a place of sanctity in American culture. They have been drained of compelling moral significance and the availability of marriage to same-sex groupings now ranks not as a standard but as a mere option in a menu of choices.

Campaigns for the abolition of the sexes in sports, for exposing young children to the most extreme of sexual orientations and acts, for polyamory and other multiple-partner arrangements, and even for such once-unthinkable fetishes as the furry movement have now gathered full steam. There exists no broad-based campaign by advocates for same-sex marriage to reserve sexual behavior to such unions — marriage was secured in law, but is not considered sacred. The new regime tolerates even the purchase of children via surrogacy that exploits young or impoverished women around the world.

Needless to say, this situation has made the debate over the true sanctity of marriage as vital as ever. What do the state GOP platforms have to say on the matter and what is next? For our review of state platforms on the life issue, the conclusion was that the vast majority of state parties continue to “reflect a strong position on the fundamental question of the right to life and related policies on defunding measures, alternatives to abortion, and other subjects.”

On marriage and sexuality generally, the state platforms can be read to endorse a socially conservative view but there is no doubt that this view is at risk moving forward. The normative questions have their deepest resonance in the debates occurring in America’s schools. It is impossible to see sexual norms as topics for private choice among what used to be referred to as “consenting adults.” All of these questions necessarily present themselves as variants of, “What do we tell the children?” What our nation holds, it will teach.

Here are key findings of our review of the state platforms:

• Of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and five U.S. territories, 38 either embrace a natural, man-woman understanding of marriage or endorse the 2024 national platform with its call for recognition of the “sanctity of marriage.” Twenty-eight do so in their own words, with varying but similar phrases, while 10 states have no state platform at all and rely on links to or endorsements of the platform approved in Milwaukee. As noted in our study of life issues, these 10 states include some whose parties are conservative but linked to the party leadership and therefore perhaps more sensitive to accord with the national mood (e.g., Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennessee, Virginia, and Florida). Others in this latter group include more liberal GOP caucuses, like New York, Connecticut, and Maryland, whose support for the definition of marriage may be more doubtful.

• A few states express support for the natural understanding of marriage but take pains to communicate concern for single parents or to suggest awareness of the diversity of family structures and desire to encourage family stability without harm to other forms. Hawaii, Indiana, and Wisconsin feature such language.

• While objections to the transgender agenda occur in the platforms, they are less specific when it comes to particular policies. In this respect, this issue lags behind national attention to the gender debate, where it might be argued that discussion of this topic has become the leading social issue advanced by the conservative side. Five state GOP platforms explicitly oppose genital-destructive surgeries while 14 oppose the participation of men in women’s sports and privacy practices regarding locker rooms and bathrooms. Many more states refer generally to traditional values in their platforms so this topic might be subsumed in their overall policy outlook.

• Only a handful of states venture into detailed policy recommendations, but any state looking for models can find fodder in states that are likewise thorough in their attention to the life issues. These states include Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri, Illinois, Hawaii, West Virginia, and a handful of others.

• A likewise small group of states mention such topics as no-fault divorce, covenant marriage, tax policy, judicial appointments, and other measures that might buttress the legal standing of marriage in our fractured culture.

As to what is next, it seems likely that what has been an often behind-the-scenes fracture in the Republican Party will break into the open in the next few cycles. Social conservatives who sense an isolation in today’s GOP may find themselves losing influence, but they are not without advocates in leadership positions or at the grassroots level. To advance, they will need a combination of short-term policies fellow Americans can support and a long-term strategy, likely via education reform, that can “build back better” the institutions of faith, family, and freedom now under such desperate siege.

The author thanks FRC intern Katie Crain for her assistance with this research.