Just days after the presidential election, the press reported a change the Texas Board of Education made in a high school text. When speaking of marriage, the textbook would now speak of marriage not as a union of partners but as a union of man and woman. Not a startling definition in light of the common tradition of humanity stretching far back beyond the pages of Genesis. Yet what is disconcerting is the remark reported of a board member who refused to endorse the change. She labeled the change “political agenda.” She argued that the whim of some individuals should not dictate our actions. Without realizing the depth of her observation, she enunciated a profound truth while, at the same time, lobbying to perpetuate the very ideology she was condemning. She was right. The whim of any individual or groups of individuals can never be the measure of a society’s morality. There are standards and values that transcend individual preferences. She was wrong because she was actually arguing to replace a solid centuries-tested understanding of marriage with the preference of some activists.