‘You conservative Christians are welcome to your own views about marriage.  The fact that we support gay civil marriage doesn’t affect what you do at all.’

Derek Rishmawy comments on this view, expressed in the following way by David French:

‘For those who believe gay marriage is morally wrong for Biblical or other religious reasons, this decision changes nothing. Churches can still speak out against sexual immorality and can still choose not to perform gay weddings. The gay couple down the street in no way makes our own straight marriage more difficult or challenging, nor can any decision of any court of law change the definition of marriage in the eyes of God.’

But, as Rishmawy notes, there is a basic flaw with this idea that ‘the gay couple down the street in no way makes our own marriage more difficult or challenging, nor can any decision of any court of law change the definition of marriage in the eyes of God.’

If we are interested in the common good, then we will realise that

‘ensconcing a modern, sexless definition of marriage into law will have far-reaching negative political, social, moral, and spiritual repercussions for all involved.’

This is partly because the law does not simply reflect the views of society, it shapes those views too.

But it is also because it neglects the reality of marriage as a shared social institution.  My neighbour’s marriage affects mine (and vice-versa) in a number of ways.

Take the example of no-fault divorce: the fact that the law has changed so that my neighbour can now get such a divorce means that I could get such a divorce too.  Divorce has been made easier for everyone, and my marriage is thereby potentially weaker, and could succumb to a time of doubt of frustration.  The social and moral currency of marriage vows has been devalued.

So, although my neighbour’s divorce doesn’t force me into divorce, but it makes it more thinkable and possible:

‘Every couple who has been married long enough and sees the first, second, third, etc. divorce hit their friend circle knows this, as does every 90s kid who got scared every time one of their friend’s parents got divorced. It made your own sense of your parents’ marriage that much weaker, that much less safe.’

Marriage is not only a divine institution; it is also a social institution.

Moreover, new, sexless definitions of marriage steer it away from its role in providing the context for procreation and a stable environment for the nurture of children.