A friend sent me a summary of yesterday’s arguments before the Massachusetts Supreme Court in Goodridge v. Mass., where gays are suing for the right to marry. The pro-gay argument is basically that refusing them marriage is no different than the old bans on interracial marriage. “Justice Sosman said that unlike the case of interracial marriage, here the plaintiffs were seeking to change the definition of what marriage is. [Plaintiff’s attorney] Bonauto respectfully disagreed, blathering on about how the same-race requirement for marriage entered the definition of marriage. Sosman responded that there was no long-standing ban on interracial marriage the way there was on same-sex marriage.”
And that’s a key point. People of different races have been marrying for millennia and the ban on such marriages was an aberration, but same-sex marriages have never been a norm anywhere, in any culture.
Reading the arguments, including the state’s argument for preserving marriage, I think the pro-family side is going to lose this one. Without an appeal to traditional family values and our common religious heritage (every major religion does not recognize same-sex marriage as a rule), I don’t see a good argument for restricting it to opposite-sex couples. When you’ve thrown morality out of the equation, what’s left but personal preference? The state’s attorney tried to appeal to the state’s interest in promoting an environment for the procreation and raising of children, but when you’ve already said that gay adoption is okay, that doesn’t hold water anymore.