Now that the election is over, and "values" has been transformed by the media to mean "gay marriage," I thought it a good time to reflect on what the gay marriage movement is really about.

Advocates consistently portray gay marriage as a civil rights issue, equating it to the struggle of blacks and women for voting rights and other anti-discrimination legislation. But what civil rights are currently denied gay couples? Here are the ones typically trotted out.

Hospital visitation. Does anyone seriously believe this is better remedied by federal legislation than by simply changing hospital policy? C'mon, people, write your local hospital, not your congressman.

Property inheritance rights. This "problem" is already solved: all gays need do is write a will and allow the inheritance tax to disappear, as currently legislated.

Now we come to the big issue that no one seems to admit is the real source of the controversy: child rearing.

The fact is that marriage was established and supported over the millenia as an institution to encourage a stable family as the best environment in which to raise children. It is meant to reign in the rogue males and keep them legally and financially tied to their offspring, thereby insuring that society (i.e. the taxpayer) does not need to assume that responsibility. That is society's interest in marriage, and that equality is what the gay agenda seeks: equality under law as parents.

The debate we need to be having, rather than the import of hospital visitation, inheritance rights, or health care benefits, is whether or not a gay household represents an equally beneficial environment for the raising of children as a heterosexual household. All other nuances of marital law can be easily remedied without changing the meaning of "marriage."