Over the past several days, I have heard a seemingly endless stream of news reports which all, without exception, talk about an amedment which would -- and I quote:

"Ban gay marriage"

Regardless of which side one takes on this issue, it blows my mind to hear the media be so grossly ignorant -- or is it willing deceptive? -- about this issue. The amedment does not "ban gay marriage." That description is simply wrong, and in several ways at once.

First of all, you can't "ban" something which isn't already recognized as a right.

Second of all, the bill doesn't "ban gay marriage" -- in the sense that gays would be prohibited from pledging their undying love and fealty to each other, which is what that phrasing implies. It simply prevents the word "marriage" from being redefined to mean a union of two men or two women.

That's it.

It doesn't prevent states from creating "civil unions" which have the exact same legal status and benefits as marriage. Nor does it prevent any act: it doesn't prevent, for example, two gay persons from pledging their undying love to one another and being faithful to each other for life -- which is what the term "bans gay marriage" conjures upon in the mind. That is an utterly false image.

A simple, correct phrase to use when describing this amendment would be "bans the redefinition of marriage", or "defines 'marriage' to mean only a heterosexual union." To date, I have never heard a single report mention that tiny, unimportant fact. Almost as if the people have no right to know.

Finally, I'll point out again that "gay marriage" is, in itself, an oxymoron, moreso even than "millitary intelligence." "Homosexual" refers to sexual activity among two SAME-sexed persons. "Marriage" refers to the joining of two opposites. It is incoherant to call "marriage" the joining of two similar things, since the world itself means the joining of opposites. "Gay unions" is a much more semantically honest term.

(Can't have that, can we?)

I have a friend who's gay, who speaks this way: He always complains that he and his partner are "not allowed to get married." Huh? I just can't see why not. It's not like they're not already living together, sharing stuff, having sex, etc. And somehow, I doubt he has any issues with trying to remain celibate, because he wants to save himself "for marriage" as even some of my older heterosexual single friends do.

If the situation were reversed, and my girlfriend and I decided to marry, and we lived in a society which defined "marriage" only as the joining of two men or women, but not a heterosexual union -- do you think she and I would sit around moping about how we couldn't "marry"?

Of course not. As subversive, culture-bucking Christians, we would believe marriage is something in God's eyes, we would assemble our friends together, and pledge before them to be true to each other for life, and ask them to help hold us to that promise.

Is that so difficult? What law is there against that?

We want the fact of the thing, not some word, and could care less whether everyone on the planet agreed with us. The important point is your oath to stick to one another, and never another, "till death do us part."

I'll go one further, actually: it would be nice if the government held us to it, legally. In my hypothetical society, we wouldn't get that extra boost. But that's no different than reality now, where government doesn't hold us to it either, so we can't say that's a "right" denied to homosexuals, since straights don't have it now either -- though some would like to see it restored.

Would homosexuals really want a nice, strong definition of marriage, where the government would get involved in, as it used to with straights, prosecuting an unfaithful partner for infidelity or alienation of affection?

If you have a gay friend, ask them. I expect I know what answer they'll give: suddenly, the government should have no business in their private affairs. Even though they just complained they wanted it involved there.

And that ought to tell you something: we -- straights and gays -- are not really after the same thing when we want "marriage."

To heterosexuals, it is all about a promise. Everything stems from that. A dear friend of mine, whom I respect deeply for it, has decided to reconcile with her husband, NOT because there's something in it for her, or because she feeeeels all mushy and sticky at the prospect, but, because, well, she feels a promise is a promise. And my own parents remained together through similar (or worse) difficulties, for the exact same reason, and I respect them endlessly for it.

Yet to homosexuals, this is all about recognition. It's not about promises, or actions, or benefits: contrary to what many false reports say, the aforementioned amendment would not prevent states from giving marriage-like benefits to same-sex unions. And, again, that's not the issue. The issue is that certain activists want to force all of us to CALL what they are doing "marriage", in essence -- and, in real effect, mark my word -- to criminalize any attempt to treat or even speak of it otherwise.

This is a battle for words and minds, not a desire to be able execute some action, such as having sex with each other, or pledging fidelity, which is how we heterosexuals primarily conceive of marriage. Those "rights" are already conferred: gays can have as much sex as they want with anyone, and even promise to restrict it to a single partner. And most of us are more than willing to grant marriage-like benefits*, by any other name, to any designated person.

I just want the "right" to dissent. And that is precisely what is being sought to be removed here: dissenting speech and action. And I'm not just saying this: top legal scholars on both sides of the issue all agree "gay marriage" will, if recognized by the state, have profound implications for religious liberty. Should "gay marriage" achieve equal legal standing, churches and religious schools would not be allowed to "discriminate" against homosexuals when hiring. "Sexual orientation" WOULD be, in the eyes of the law, a legally protected category.

This means no barring gays from the ministry, not from church day care centers, not from teaching at a Catholic school. Right or wrong, religious people will no ability to control their staffing nor right to free association in this regard. And, even more chillingly, we have, in fact, already seen people -- in Canada, in Australia -- hauled into court and prosecuted simply for saying they disagree with homosexuality. Even if I were on the other side of the issue, I would not want to criminalize my opponents' speech. But that is precisely what follows.

In public schools, "gay marriage" now having equal footing, legally, with heterosexual unions, you will see the same treatment as with race: Juan will have to be depicted as having two fathers 1/3rd the time, with two mothers 1/3rd the time, and with one mother and one father the final 1/3rd of the time. Just to make sure all legally protected marriage forms are treated equally.

Think of it: Do you *really* want your kids to have half or two-thirds of their word problems or stories describe homosexual unions? There will be no legal recourse from doing otherwise. This is not just about worrying if they will be "exposed" to the idea in kindergarten, or elementary school: they will quite literally be steeped in it.

Welcome to the Brave New World.

(* Except where kids are involved. I will maintain that kids are better served by having a stable situation with one parent of each gender. But that's not an issue the activists want to raise in your mind, as it's one of the worst sticky points associated with "gay marriage" in most people's mind: Full "gay marriage" means that two gay men could easily get together and legally adopt a young boy. In the eyes of the law, that union would necessarily be every bit as preferable for the boy as a married heterosexual couple: it would be illegal for any adoption agency to discriminate, and prefer a situation where the boy would have a mother. And that, in turn, has profound implications for women who would want to consider adoption as an option for their child.)