The definition of marriage has been in the headlines across the country due to recent events in California.  In case you haven’t heard, the California Supreme Court overturned the voice of the people and will become the second state in America to allow same-sex marriages.

In reaction to this ruling, I would like to point to an article written by David Benkof, a columnist for several gay newspapers and blogs.  He wrote an opinion editorial in the Philadelphia Inquirer about the consequences of the California Supreme Court’s gay marriage decision.  Here is a portion of that article:

“California already has a domestic-partnership law providing all the state benefits of marriage to same-sex couples, and the federal Defense of Marriage Act prevents all the federal benefits.

Sure, gays and lesbians may get a lift in self-esteem from having their relationships declared “equal” by four jurists, but does an ego boost really outweigh the real harms caused by last week’s decision?

Because there certainly are harms - to religious liberty and to children, for example. For the last two weeks, I have been contacting “marriage equality” leaders from San Diego to Sacramento to ask about the impact of redefining marriage on religious freedom.

All have repeatedly refused to disclose their opinions, including prominent lesbian and gay legislators, other elected leaders, and one of the plaintiffs in the celebrated Supreme Court case, Robin Tyler.

Although California marriage-equality leaders won’t say what impact they expect the new decision to have on religious freedom, activists in other states haven’t been so shy.

A representative of the largest Michigan gay-rights group, known as the Triangle Foundation, and openly gay Washington State Sen. Ed Murray both told me that any person who continues to conduct himself as if what he thinks is God’s definition of marriage is correct, instead of the gay community’s definition, should be fined, fired and even jailed until he relents.

“If you are a public accommodation and you are open to anyone on Main Street that means you must be open to everyone on Main Street. If they don’t do it, that’s contempt and they will go to jail,” says the Triangle Foundation’s Sean Kososky.

Sharon Malheiro, a lawyer and LGBT activist from Des Moines affiliated with the state’s gay-marriage lobby, ONE-IOWA, told me that if a teacher in a marriage-equality state taught that marriage is between a man and a woman, “then it becomes a job performance issue” and the school district should take appropriate action.

Michael Taylor-Judd, the president of the Legal Marriage Alliance of Washington state, said if a newspaper writes that a given same-sex marriage wasn’t really a marriage, “it is certainly in the realm of possibility for someone to bring a [libel] suit, and quite possibly to be successful.”

The Triangle Foundation’s Kososky agreed: “I would be sympathetic to some damages.”

Now, no lesbian in history has lost her assets, her job, or her freedom for writing, teaching, and running her business guided by her belief that marriage is a union of any two individuals who love each other.

So why do gay activists outside California support limitations on the freedom of speech, the press, and religious expression for anyone who disagrees with them? And why won’t California marriage-equality activists go on the record with their opinions on this vital issue?”

For a link to the whole article, go to the Latest News at www.pa4marriage.org