The Weight of Glory

The California Supreme Court decided this morning to redefine marriage. More evidence we've lost our minds.

The California Catholic Conference responds that the ruling is unconstitutional.

When Massachusetts did this a few years ago, I wrote a short parody:
Massachusetts declares God had wrong idea in making sex a heterosexual institution.

Today, I wrote over on the ACS blog:

Can someone explain what the state and polis have to gain by recognizing homosexual unions? I mean, it's nice for the couple themselves, but why is the Supreme Court issuing an opinion that redefines marriage? As if they had a right do so...

Those who believe that same-sex genital coupling can lead to true human happiness and that it can also be good for society are going to believe that legislation protecting marriage as a heterosexual institution is discriminatory. There are time-honored communities, however, that beg to differ:

Society owes its continued survival to the family, founded on marriage. The inevitable consequence of legal recognition of homosexual unions would be the redefinition of marriage, which would become, in its legal status, an institution devoid of essential reference to factors linked to heterosexuality; for example, procreation and raising children. If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible form of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good. By putting homosexual unions on a legal plane analogous to that of marriage and the family, the State acts arbitrarily and in contradiction with its duties. The principles of respect and non-discrimination cannot be invoked to support legal recognition of homosexual unions. Differentiating between persons or refusing social recognition or benefits is unacceptable only when it is contrary to justice. The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it. Nor can the principle of the proper autonomy of the individual be reasonably invoked. It is one thing to maintain that individual citizens may freely engage in those activities that interest them and that this falls within the common civil right to freedom; it is something quite different to hold that activities which do not represent a significant or positive contribution to the development of the human person in society can receive specific and categorical legal recognition by the State. Not even in a remote analogous sense do homosexual unions fulfil the purpose for which marriage and family deserve specific categorical recognition. On the contrary, there are good reasons for holding that such unions are harmful to the proper development of human society, especially if their impact on society were to increase.

And Down Under, John Heard asks the question: is this really what gay people want?