Oak Park, Ill.--Let's agree that the state, as a subsidiary agent, is interested in what is true.  By what is true I mean that which is objective, or that which can be agreed upon by impartial observers performing the same tests.  There is objective evidence for what is true.

        Three reliable witnesses say Matt shot Susan.  Here is an example of a truth that may interest a representative of the state.  In another case, we have a record on an accurate machine that shows Roger was traveling sixty miles an hour in his car when the posted speed limit on the road was twenty-five miles an hour. 

        In yet another example, Nancy passed the state exam, so she will be issued a license to practice medicine.  David failed the written part of his driver's test, so the state does not give him a license to drive.  Even if David bribes the examiner, it does not invalidate the exam. 

        Bill and Susan love one another and want to get married.  The state will issue a marriage license to them.  Now, come Brad and Michael, followed by Jill and Sue.  They, too, want to get married as same-sex couples.  The state says, "No, we cannot issue a marriage license to you.  You cannot prove you are who you say you are.  You cannot prove your sexual orientation."

        The four go off and protest, carrying placards that proclaim "Equality for Gays and Lesbians."  They claim discrimination.  The state claims it reserves the right to license certain activities based on objective criteria.  It is not discrimination to do that. 

        The state will only allow a man to marry a woman who is not his relative, not because it relies on an arbitrary meaning to the word "marriage," but because it has an objective standard for proving who is a man and who is a woman.  Furthermore, it is in the interest of the state to allow this relationship so that property may be transferred, or that children may be socialized or inheritance regulated and family life organized--all in the interest of the general welfare.

        For the state to be fair in its issue of licenses, it can only base its decisions on objective criteria.  The state relies not only on common sense, science, and tests, but in legal matters, on the rules of evidence and juries to establish these criteria.

        The state can prove if someone is a man or a woman, down to the chromosomal level. Yes, there are a few exceptions, those with XXY in their makeup for example, but the overall weight of evidence allows an impartial observer to make a truthful judgment about the sex of Mary or Roger.

        There is no objective proof that allows an impartial observer to say someone has a gay or lesbian sexual orientation.  The performance of certain sexual acts is not sufficient. Even those who claim to be gay or lesbian will agree to that. 

        There have been suggestions that differences in brain structure lead to differences in sexual orientation, or that there may be a chromosomal link to sexual orientation, or that hormones play a part in causing homosexuality.  All of these data are not conclusive. 

        To claim to be gay or lesbian is to self-report a status or subjective condition; it is not an objective, verifiable fact.  Perhaps, the only way the state could allow same-sex marriage is for there to be proof that sexual orientation can be established objectively. 

        This may happen, as science and our knowledge of sexuality progresses, but as it stands now, the state is justified in allowing marriage only between a man and a woman, because it can prove who is a man and who is a woman.  It cannot prove who has a gay or lesbian sexual orientation. 

        To set up objective criteria about who may get married is not to discriminate, but to base a judgment on facts that can be empirically verified.  Without empirical evidence, what is to stop someone from reporting that he is a pig-lover and wants to marry a pig, or that she is a tree-lover and wants to marry a tree?  How can those orientations be proved beyond self-reporting? 

        The case for interracial marriage actually argues against the case for same-sex marriages.  Once it was established that there was no objective reason why blacks and whites should not marry, they were licensed to do so.  Interracial marriage became a civil right, same-sex marriage based on sexual orientation still remains a civil wrong.

        Is same-sex marriage a civil right?  This question seems to be the focal point of the debate, the point where the lens is focusing the argument to a white, hot flame.  Certainly, the U. S. Constitution does not grant same-sex marriage as a right.

        Furthermore, there is no unqualified right to marriage based on orientation.  The right to drive a car or to practice medicine is not an unqualified right, either.  The state grants such rights after objective criteria are met.  The same should hold for the right to marry. 

        Gays and lesbians do have the "right" to marry, just not the right to a same-sex marriage.  This is the same right straights have.  Straights are also under restrictions as to whom they shall marry.  A man cannot marry his sister, for example.  The claim for "equal rights" regarding marriage may sound good at first, but at last it ends in gobbledygook.

        Those who protest for same-sex marriage claim they want equality, but equality with what?  Are they claiming that heterosexuality is equal to homosexuality, when neither of these orientations can be proven? 

        When we attempt to prove orientation we are again met with the problem of self validating reports.  To allow a person's self-report to obtain a license is in the end to allow all self-reports for a license.  To report that "I know how to drive a car," or "I know how to remove an appendix," is not sufficient proof for the state to issue a driver's license or a license to practice medicine.  A fair and objective test is required to get these licenses. 

        To allow self-reports as a qualification for a marriage license is to create a situation where who or what you are allowed to marry is limitless.  Without limits, why have marriage at all?  To further same-sex marriage based on sexual orientation is to create a situation where marriage becomes meaningless and practically destroyed. 

        Furthermore, to argue that the state should license marriage based on sexual orientation but no other orientation, is to make the state do what gay and lesbian protesters say the state should not do, that is discriminate against one orientation over another. 

        Just because the state will not license same-sex marriages does not mean it has no interest in civil-unions.  If such unions meet certain objective criteria, criteria outside the scope of our present consideration, then there seems to be no reason why these relationships cannot be furthered.  At the moment, civil-unions seem to be not only a political compromise, but also a theological possibility.

        It would serve those well who protest for same-sex marriage to reconsider their protests.  Most voters are not in favor of their proposal.  Such protests also gain little sympathy by attacking religion.  The protesters often express a "spoiled brat syndrome," as well, childishly demanding what they cannot have.  Furthermore, in the near future, other political and economic concerns may divert their passions. 

        An impartial observer to the confusion that surrounds the debate over same-sex marriage may wonder if it is the duty of the state to guarantee any form of love.  The burden of love upon an individual may be heavy or light, depending upon the gift they hold. Perhaps, the heavy heart does better to rest in religion than to rest in the state.

        Unlike the campaign to repeal sodomy laws, which was based on legalizing certain behavior, the campaign for same-sex marriage is based on a mass delusion.  When all is said and done on this issue, the talent and intelligence of gays and lesbians will show them a way to live without state licensed marriages.  Those who persist in their demand for same-sex marriage will appear then to be too full of themselves.  They still need a dose of reality.