Ruth Institute Blog

By Patrick McIlheran of the Journal Sentinel

Let’s look at how the gay-marriage thing in California has unfolded so far:

The state’s Supreme Court in 2008, on a one-vote margin, decides to redefine marriage to dump one key parameter that had always and everywhere in human history been part of marriage: that it be between complementary sexes, not identical ones.

Within months, the voters of the state overrule the court, amending their constitution to say that, no, you can’t redefine basic social institutions against the will of the people. The losers sue the state.

And Wednesday, a federal judge – a judge, as in one – overrules the people, ruling, among other things, that “gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage.” It doesn’t?

Gay “marriage” advocates cheered, of course, saying it’s a great advance for equality. Ask yourself, however, this: What changed, precisely, because of the decision (presume, for a moment, that all appeals courts agree with Judge Vaughn Walker).

Does this, as gay “marriage” advocates often say, remove some impediment to their preferred relationships?

No, it doesn’t. The fight isn’t about the freedom to love, since the law says nothing (nor should it) about who can love whom, a fundamentally private matter.

Does this change practicalities, such as the right to co-own a house or leave legacies to a gay lover?

No, it does not. Even in places that, like Wisconsin, have not redefined marriage, one may make wills, mortgages, adoptions, benefits arrangements and the like with whom one wants. For its part, California had civil unions carrying all the benefits of marriage.

Does this alter the ability to a couple to tell each other they’ll be faithful unto death, of one flesh, as married couples (ideally) do?

No. People have always been able to say and mean whatever they wish to each other. Again, the law has no say in such private matters.

Does this allow gay couples to be regarded as if they were married by friends? Does it allow acquaintances to think of long-time lovers as being married?

Again, no. People have long done this, and some churches have long been blessing such couples. That’s their right, of course. They require no judge to do so.

Does this mean that everyone else, including especially perfect strangers, must also now grant gay relationships the same unique and special public respect that until now society has always and everywhere reserved for married couples?

Yes, it does. That’s what the decision was exactly about: Commanding society to view homosexual relationships with a favor that society has been unwilling to grant.

Don’t take my word: As the New York Times explained it, gay-rights activists have increasingly sought same-sex marriage not simply to “lessen discrimination” but also as “an emotional indicator of legitimacy.” The paper quoted one activist as saying that to not redefined marriage “is to deny respect for the essence of who we are as gay people.”

Which is why the state’s civil unions, which conferred the practical benefits of marriage, weren’t enough: They sealed the relationship privately, while only marriage itself could mandate public approbation.

Keep reading.