The Supreme Court heard oral arguments yesterday on California's Proposition 8. The initial take on the questions and comments from the Court is that the Court seems reluctant to force "gay marriage" on the states. However, as other commentators have pointed out, the initial take on the challenges to ObamaCare was that the Court would strike it down--and they were wrong. Plus, Justice Kennedy made some comments that suggest he would support gay marriage for the sake of the children adopted by such couples.And you know what happens when the "for the sake of the children" is made--bad law justified for the most altruistic of reasons.
There are conservatives (i.e., fiscal conservatives or libertarians) that believe that fighting gay marriage is a waste of time and resources. One argument is that the economic issues facing the country are so serious that it is pointless and counterproductive to fight over social issues. (Although this forgets that the "conservative" tent encompasses people with different interests and goals). Roger L. Simon argues that the real problem is marriage, or rather, the decline in marriage. He opines that gay marriage will do nothing to harm traditional marriage. And, in a way, he is correct. Traditional marriage is not in decline because of gay marriage.
But that is not the point. It is a continuation of the erosion of the importance society places on marriage--it trivializes marriage. Arguments supporting gay marriage denigrate the special relationship between a man and a woman in marriage, and the benefits traditional marriage provide to the children of such a relationship in particular, and to society generally. Gay marriage is another way point in the decline of marriage.
It is also a wedge in the doorway that will allow government to further dictate religious belief and private action. We see this already by the fact that opposition to gay marriage is vilified--in some countries, speech in opposition to gay marriage is considered "hate speech" and punishable as a crime.