The “gay marriage” issue is set to take center stage in the press today.

The California Supreme Court is scheduled to hand down its decision in a series of lawsuits seeking to overturn November's Proposition 8, which revised the state’s constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage. In May of 2008, the same court ruled that marriage laws denying same-sex couples the right to wed violated the state’s constitution, thus prompting citizens to take action via referendum (Proposition 8).

I find it interesting that proponents of gay “marriage” claim to be fighting for “equal rights”. According to them, the “right” of traditional marriage is being protected by the state while those who seek same-sex marriage are being denied that “right” and are thus discriminated against. The problem for them is that definitions are stubborn things.

Look in any dictionary and the term “marriage” is defined in some form as follows:

“The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.”

Based on simple definitions, the argument of denied rights for homosexuals holds no standing. Indeed, using both the definition of marriage and any current laws that specifically deny same-sex marriage, there is not one right being granted a heterosexual that a homosexual does not share.

To wit:

A male can marry a female. It doesn’t matter if that male is homosexual or heterosexual; the same right to marry a female exists for both individuals. No special right is being granted the heterosexual that the homosexual does not also share. Ah, but the homosexual will claim that he can’t marry the person (another male) that he loves and wants to marry and is therefore being discriminated against. The problem here is that the homosexual is left attempting to define a “want” as a “right”. While having the same right to marry a female as a heterosexual male, the homosexual is now demanding his want to marry another male. Thankfully, in civilized society, the state and other individuals do not place the burden on themselves of guaranteeing other people’s wants. Society would crumble if it did. I “want” a nice yacht and a BMW, but it is by no means my “right” to have them.

To the contrary of the denied right argument, and the subject of another essay, is that new so-called “hate crimes” legislation actually begins to grant special protections and preferred class status to many minority groups, including homosexuals, in excess of what their majority counterparts are awarded. Odd how we don’t find proponents of gay marriage fighting “hate crimes” laws based on the same argument of equal protection under the law that they mistakenly apply to marriage law.

To be clear, I support a government that establishes protections for voluntary contracts entered into by two consenting adults. If two men or two women desire to legally share in each others fortune or debt, grant medical decision making power to each other, or establish any other coequal status amongst themselves, I have no problem whatsoever with this. Contract protection is indeed one of the few proper functions of government. The act of sexual intercourse should also not be regulated against when it is being carried out by two consenting adults.

Marriage, however, has a standing definition. It is this definition that same-sex marriage proponents are attempting to change, much to the chagrin of countless individuals who, based on their religious ideology, simple tradition, or other factors, would rather not see changed. This is understandable in the same way (to give an admittedly excessive example) that a baseball player couldn’t simply start calling a base hit a “home run” or a football player could call making it to the 10-yard line a “touchdown”. Changing those definitions would so fundamentally change the sport (or society in marriages case) that doing so is simply unwise and unnecessary.

My solution offered to homosexuals? Stop rocking the boat and demanding that society change it’s definitions just for you. What have you accomplished other than peeving off a large number of people and possibly making actual discrimination a larger problem? Come up with your own word to describe the legal union of a same-sex couple. Call it whatever you want. Take pride in it! Be as creative as we know you are! Relieve the stress of attempting to change society's definitions by just coming up with your own word. Then feel absolutely free to take exception when Tom and Suzy want to muddy the waters by stealing your word and it’s meaning.

Seems fair to me!