May people are rejoicing that homosexual men and women are now allowed to get married. The problem is that they have never been barred from getting married. After all, Gene Robinson was married at one time and he was homosexual.
What the Supreme Court of California did was not stop discrimination against homosexual men and women. It changed the definition of marriage. Without a vote of either the legislature or of the people directly, the court decided to change what a word meant. The problem is that "marriage" has always been defined (at least in European and American history) as one man and one woman, but it was not specified because it was one of those things that was understood to be true. It was an axiom. "Marriage is one man and one woman." This is simply the way it was.
Now, you can argue that this definition is unjust, but shouldn't a change in the definition of something so fundamental to society be decided by the legislature or by the people directly? If we can change the definition of marriage by judicial fiat, to be any two people who are not related (within a certain range or relationships), why can't we change it further to include any n people of any relationship? Why should a man not be allowed to marry his sister? Why should a person not be allowed to have multiple spouses - so long as they all agree that this is OK?
I am not advocating for incest or for polyamorous relationships. I am advocating that we make changes of this magnitude through the legislature, not the courts.