The Problem with Court Edicts

Same-sex marriage has become a cause-celebre in an astonishingly short span of time. I don't remember it even appearing anywhere but on the periphery of the social radar screen as recently as a year ago. That said, having been thrust from zero to sixty-nine in 5 seconds, it is important to remember the secular arguments against this agenda.

The effect of same-sex marriage is to redefine the institution from "the union of a man and a woman" to "the union of two consenting adults." Clearly, that in and of itself is not earth-shattering, hurts no one, and does not signal the fall of civilization. Some might argue that a little commitment in the gay community would be a moderating influence.

The problem, however, is that when we change the institution of marriage once, the issue continues to "walk." And when the courts overule the majority of society and unilaterally morph marriage from a societal and religious institution into an individual right, they open a can of pythons.

If two adults can marry without regard to gender, what about three? or four? What about a father and an adult daughter? (that's a true story, not a hypothesis, by the way) What about Elizabeth Smart, who was brainwashed to believe she was married? What about two adult sisters? They love each other. Is the state now forced to legislate the difference between romantic and platonic love?

By dictating society into a legal corner without benefit of accompanying legislative debate in which these ancillary situations could be properly addressed and planned for, the courts have effectively created a vacuum and it is impossible to predict what will fill this void.

The fact is, if marriage is defined by the individual participants, rather than by society at large and/or churches, it loses its larger meaning as an institution.