Note: This article explores some probable impacts from the recent California Supreme Court decision, which allowed for same-sex marriages to be legalized. 

There is a popular saying which asserts, "You cannot legislate morality." I have heard this particular quote repeated ad nauseum over the years, particularly on hot-button topics like abortion, illegal drug use, prostitution, pornography, and (most recently) homosexuality. Many well-meaning advocates of this statement imply that, by establishing any law prohibiting a particular behavior, such established law will NOT prevent individuals from engaging in prohibited behaviors, regardless of the penalties. I wholeheartedly agree.

Yet following this same discourse and logic, one must eventually conclude the law NEVER prevents individuals from engaging in any prohibited activity whatsoever. One could easily defend a position that the establishment of laws defining and prohibiting murder have failed to prevent any murderer from committing homicide. So what purpose does establishing laws (prohibiting certain behaviors) accomplish?

The law only establishes limits of acceptable and unacceptable behavior in any society. The establishment of laws prohibiting specific acts sets parameters and sanctions for violations of those laws. Though many argue morality cannot be legislated, by its very nature of delineating right and wrong, the law indeed legislates morality. The question of establishing laws, then, boils down to the definitions of what constitutes right and wrong and who decides where the boundaries are placed.

The law does not protect law-abiders from law-breakers. It NEVER has. The law is merely the arbiter between two opposing factions. The law provides for redress, restitution, and retribution. It does not prevent crime from occurring anymore than placing a lock on a door guarantees the absolute safety of the persons or items secured behind it.

In June 2008, the California Supreme Court made a ruling of law which, by the nature of its ruling, legislated morality for all California citizens. Homosexuals have been granted the same marital status as heterosexual couples, overturning laws to the contrary. Ignoring the voter-approved initiative establishing marriage as solely between a man and woman (in 2000), the Court opened the door for gay-marriages to become legal. And long lines of eager gay couples lined up to be legitimized.

So how does allowing homosexuals to legally marry affect the institution of marriage? At first glance, the impact might appear negligible. However, for many who hold marriage as sacred and inviolate, legalizing sexual deviancy only serves to degrade holy matrimony. Perhaps polygamists can now gain legitimacy? How about allowing pedophiles to marry minor children? Maybe dogs can become more than just Man's best friend?

 In particular, churches will suffer from the Supreme Court ruling, if present attempts to amend California's constitution fail. Imagine in the future that a homosexual couple decides to get married in a local Baptist Church, in California. The pastor politely declines to perform the ceremony or allow the couple use of the church facility for the ceremony. This gay couple contacts an attorney and a lawsuit is levied against the pastor and the church for discrimination. Why? Because it is now legal for the homosexual couple to be married like any heterosexual couple. Never mind that homosexuality is taboo (sin) within established Baptist doctrine. The church must either relent or suffer a costly legal battle in the court system. As a result of the Court's ruling, Christian churches will be hard-pressed to defend themselves against these types of lawsuits based on religious grounds.

One need not be religious to see the California Supreme Court legislated morality in its ruling on homosexual marriage. Prior to the ruling, gays had the same rights and benefits afforded heterosexual married couples, through civil unions and domestic partnerships. In effect, it ruled that marriage between a man and a woman is nothing more than a tax-break or medical benefit. 

 Whether the high court made an appropriate judgment remains to be seen.

(copyright 2008, Gregory Allen Doyle)