of all the phony arguments for gay marriage, the phoniest is the argument that it is a matter of equal rights. marriage is not a right extended to individuals by the government. it is a restriction on the rights they already have. people who are simply living together can make whatever arrangements they want, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. they can divide up their worldly belongings 50-50 or 90-10 or whatever other way they want. they can make their union temporary or permanent or subject to cancellation at any time. marriage is a restriction. if my wife buys an automobile with her own money, under california marriage laws i automatically own half of it, whether or not my name is on the title. whether that law is good, bad, or indifferent, it is a limitation of our freedom to arrange such things as we ourselves might choose. this is just one of many decisions that marriage laws take out of our hands. oliver wendell holmes said that the life of the law is not logic but experience. marriage laws have evolved through centuries of experience with couples of opposite sexes  and the children that result from such unions. society asserts its stake in the decisions made by restricting the couples' options. society has no such stake in the outcome of a union between two people of the same sex. transferring all those laws to same-sex couples would make no more sense than transferring the rules of baseball to football.
United States