The court overstepped its bounds. They did so in precise alignment with what advocates for gay marriage want. They want the label ‘marriage’ applied to the legal status of same-sex civil unions. In California, as the ruling states, there exists a functional equality between marriage and same-sex civil unions. Essentially the only difference between the two is the name. Advocates for the gay cause want the name, but they are not satisfied to allow society to grant it, instead they want to politically force the issue. Not because they are lacking any enforceable rights, but because they want the political victory.
There is essentially no legal gap, but there is a significant social gap, and the act of a state redefinition of the term will force a constitutional showdown on the social issue. So this ruling has set the stage for the worse case scenario, a constitutional fight over the social merits – meaning the content of marriage, and this will be material to the debate. The safest way to have it is with a minimal ‘defensive’ statement. “Marriage is between a man and a woman.”
It seems to me that if this is not resolved with that kind of amendment, then it’s going to come to question about who can claim to be a man or a woman. As far as I’m concerned, if advocates for the gay cause are willing to muck with the social definition of marriage, they have fallen to the same level of absurdity as changing the social definition of ‘man’ and ‘woman’. In which case it’s actually reasonable for them to declare by that same license one partner to be a ‘man’ and another to be a ‘woman’.
