Law can't keep gays from love

One of the ironies of Tuesday's constitutional referendum banning same-sex marriage is that it will almost inevitably lead to a redefinition of marriage itself.

To be sure, what develops won't be called "marriage."

The voters of Wisconsin made it quite clear that they want "marriage" to remain defined as the union of male and female and I doubt that will change, at least not during my lifetime.

Nor will the new institution look like marriage but be called by some other name.

I'm not so sure the voters wanted to ban equal legal rights for same-sex couples and I understand backers of the amendment claim the change won't hurt those who now have benefits -- but I'm also quite sure the next time a governmental body wants to extend benefits to same-sex partners, opponents of that idea will use the amended state constitution to block it.

What won't change, however, is the desire of many gays and lesbians to enter into committed relationships, to publicly express their pledges of fidelity and to build secure families.

Madison's Catholic leader, Bishop Robert Morlino, argues that traditional marriage -- "one husband, one wife, one lifetime, with openness to children" -- is part of natural law, a basic truth that can be discerned by reason.

That definition leaves a lot of people out. But I do think the desire for committed relationship, fidelity in that relationship and commitment to family is a desire that transcends the bounds of traditional marriage.

The difference is that couples who cannot legally marry will have to think outside the "box" of tradition to carry out those human desires.

They will have to redefine what a committed relationship means when it is not buttressed by civil law.

I realize same-sex couples already must do that. The amendment didn't change the fact that same-sex marriage is already illegal in Wisconsin. The difference is that there is now no real hope for them that society will come around to blessing their unions -- so they will be free to start from scratch in defining fidelity, in defining commitment and in defining the meaning of "family."

And, in doing that, they will end up redefining "marriage" in all but the legal sense. Why? Because traditional marriage doesn't always look so appealing to young people who want fidelity, commitment and family values.

We heterosexuals have done an amazing job of cheapening family values. We get divorced at a scandalous rate, turn our backs on one-parent families (it might be catching, we fear) and all too often use our children as trophy athletes.

I'm not suggesting gays and lesbians will be better at creating family values than we heterosexuals have been.

I'm saying they will create an alternative. And, in concentrating on what commitment and fidelity and family mean rather than relying on law, they just might create an alternative that is more appealing to our kids than the "marriage" we have so often miserably defined for ourselves.

You will be disappointed. Technology free criminal records may be. . Car Insurance cover is discounted when you buy your insurance online. . Soul Be It