It's hard to ignore the trend. Despite worries that state supreme courts would co-opt the issue of gay marriage and take it away from the will of the people, those courts have recently shown a surprising level of respect for the democratic process.
In liberal New York, the Court of Appeals ruled 4-2 that a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition — as a union between a man and a woman — was constitutional. Any change in this, the majority opinion said, should come from the state Legislature, not the court, and lawmakers have an interest in protecting children. Besides, same-sex marriage is not something "deeply rooted" in American history.
Georgia's high court made a similar ruling on the same day, reinstating a ban on gay marriage in that state that was passed by about 75 percent of voters. Since then, Washington, another state seen as traditionally liberal, ruled that a law there banning gay marriage is not unconstitutional, in part because traditional marriage "furthers procreation, essential to survival."
And finally, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which started all the fuss by making gay marriage there legal, rejected a lawsuit that sought to stop lawmakers from considering a constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage.
Coming on the heels of the defeat of a federal constitutional amendment to define marriage, these are encouraging trends. They should be viewed against the backdrop of 45 states having passed laws against same-sex marriage and 19 states, including Utah, having passed constitutional amendments doing the same thing. Courts in Tennessee and Nebraska also have ruled that voters should have a say in the matter.
The fundamental issue being rejected in these cases is that same-sex marriage is a matter of civil rights. That crumbles when marriage is viewed as it always has been — as a state-sanctioned union that is the most ideal for creating and raising children.
As we've argued before, protecting traditional marriage has nothing to do with prejudice against homosexuals or homophobia. Government would have absolutely no interest in controlling and legitimizing marriage if not for the fact that it provides the ideal framework for creating families and stabilizing societal structures.
The people, through their representatives or through the ballot box, should decide this issue, and that appears to be what is happening.