Gay Marriage in California
was court-mandated today. Now, it should come as no surprise that I disagree with this decision. Not only am I against gay marriage, but I'm against judicial activism on a topic where the other two branches of government are engaging in a real and unresolved debate.

Sorry if this is long, guys. It's a complex issue and I try not to dwell on any one topic too long.

However, it's difficult to disagree with the judge's conclusion here considering the facts on the ground. This ain't the mayor of San Francisco blatantly violating the law, this is a state with a very strong civil unions law that basically put gays on a "separate but equal" marriage track. Once they already have all the state benefits, the state gains nothing from distinguishing them verbally and it's an invitation to discriminate against them.

The proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage is a bad idea - the last time we tried to enshrine social policy into the Constitution, we got Prohibition.

The mayor of San Francisco's executive decision to allow gay marriage was just wrong. He was clearly violating the law and overreaching his authority. That was abuse of power on a level with President Bush and I'm glad that the voters and the courts wouldn't stand for it.

Having these decisions handed down from the bench is also wrong. The Supreme Court, the most revered part of government, also has a notoriously spotty record on social policy - remember, these are the guys who produced both Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education. The closest recent analogy I can see is Roe v. Wade, a decision that STILL divides the public 30 years later.

Since we shouldn't adjudicate gay marriage, or nationally legislate it, or decree it from on high, the remaining option for a contentious social issue of national import is for "the states and the people" to decide. From where I sit, the states are doing just that, with some (like California) deciding they want civil unions and some (like Virginia) deciding they don't. The role of the federal government here should be to clarify exactly what happens when these marriages cross the state line.

More importantly, I'm beginning to think that my fellow evangelicals and I have been going about this fight all wrong. Yes, historically, marriage is one of the most important parts of the social fabric, and one that the state has a duty to protect and encourage. Yes, having parents of both genders is better for kids than other options, and so the state should give powerful incentives for doing so. But having the religious ceremony of marriage rely on the state for legitimacy may be building your house on the sand. Maybe we should decouple the religious ceremony of marriage from the social contract of a civil union. This way, you can legislate about who exactly gets to have a civil union and what it should entail, while simultaneously fending off Pat Robertson and the "separate and prejudicial" ADA-style gay activists.

P.S. There are cogent arguments both for and against gay marriage, but "these people love each other!" is not one of them. Marriage is not a fundamental right, it is a license open to a specific set of people who are expected to form "family units" (of 2+ people) and provide tangible benefits to society. It also happens to be a sacred rite in every religion, for the same reasons. A good number of the FLDS cultists in Texas were happy to be living in a polygamous marriage where child abuse was the norm.