The law of unintended consequences is bound to catch up with all these attempts to "ban" gay marriage.
If the Talivangelicals aren't careful, the institution could be mortally wounded.
Case in point: Texas.
Here are some things to ponder when thinking about the so-called "marriage protection amendment" that voters in Texas will accept or reject this fall:
Myth: This amendment does not -- repeat not -- ban same-sex marriages. Gay and lesbian couples will still find each other, fall in love and build relationships. Some will solemnize those commitments in ceremonies both secular and religious, depending on their beliefs. The only thing missing will be the State of Texas' legal recognition.
Myth: This amendment strengthens heterosexual marriages. This is an assertion made by proponents that has little or no emperical evidence to back it up. In the states that have passed constitutional amendments or other DOMA-type legislation, divorce rates are actually higher than those states which provide legal recognition of same-sex relationships (domestic partners, civil unions, marriage).
Rather than bringing gay couples into the fold of civil marriage -- and strengthening the institution for all society -- the anti-gay marriage crowd has kept marriage on the path of continued decline.
The broad, sweeping language which eliminates same-sex civil marriage and "the legal incidents thereof" including civil unions have created a whirlwind of unintended consequences.
In Ohio, criminals are arguing that domestic violence laws do no apply to them if they are not legally married. In other states, contracts between and among unmarried people of the same gender are coming under legal scrutiny -- can two men buy a house together? Even if they're straight? (This is what the judge in the Nebraska case was saying by ruling that the language in the amendment was overly vague and too broad in scope.)
The tide is beginning to turn.
States are already trying to step back from the sweeping nature of these amendments. Experiencing the actual effects of these amendments, there seems to be a growing chorus of "that's not what we meant exactly."
In order to get the Texas amendment passed a funny thing happened: language was added that explicitly states that the amendment isn't meant to disrupt legal agreements regarding hospital visitation, inheritance, property rights, etc. (Arrangements that used to sound alot like "legal incidents" of marriage.)
Soon, more and more of these "incidents of marriage" will be taken out from under that umbrella -- further eroding the institution.
Just like domestic partnership benefits were seen as an incremental step toward fairness for gay couples -- to get them, heterosexual couples were included in the mix. "Marriage-lite" or co-habitation with benefits becomes yet another choice instead of marriage.
This seems to be the model that political reality is creating -- to the chagrin of activists on the left and the right.
The good news is that while legal recognition remains elusive, the trend toward marriage in the gay and lesbian community continues.