The ‘Greater Than’ Movement Is Not Enough

Saving society starts with principles, not with aping the left and just targeting a (very deserving) protected class.

Arthur Schaper | April 20, 2026

In January 2026, a coalition of 47 conservative pro-family groups launched a new pro-family movement called “Greater Than.” The stated goal is to end same-sex marriage in the name of putting children’s needs ahead of adults’ wants, i.e., the rights of children are “Greater Than” adult desires. Their strategy includes changing policy, law, and culture to reverse the trends that have normalized same-sex “marriage” in the United States. One of their key targets is overturning the terrible Supreme Court decision Obergefell v. Hodges.

It’s understandable why conservatives focus on children. They matter. They have an innocence that compels everyday people to care about them. Generally, adults have understood that they must step up and do what is best for themselves.

Some of the group leaders have long argued that emphasizing children puts the progressive left on the defensive. Who wants to respond to charges like “You don’t care about kids!” “You are abusing kids!” or “Why do you hate kids so much?”

That kind of thinking makes sense to conservatives. We care about children, and we care about the future of our country and culture.

However, will promoting the needs of children turn the tide against militant homosexuality, which unleashed same-sex “marriage” on the United States? Let’s consider the results.

When the Massachusetts Supreme Court imposed same-sex “marriage” on the Commonwealth via its 2003 Goodridge opinion, pro-family forces mobilized to pass a constitutional amendment to overturn that ruling. Their key argument was “Every Child Needs a Mom and Dad.” The amendment drive failed, and homosexual supremacy marched on in Massachusetts.

In 2015, when arguing against same-sex “marriage” before the United States Supreme Court, the proponents of traditional marriage also focused on “Every Child Needs a Mom and a Dad.” They didn’t do so just for the statement’s purportedly profound emotional........

© American Thinker