The point is, though, that marriage is a legal institution. A man and a woman may be “joined” but if they are not legally married, they are not married–period. Converesely, in Massachusetts, whether wisely or unwisely, courts have ruled that persons of the same sex can get married. Unless and until that decision is overturned by a federal or state constitutional amendment (or by the court overruling itself) persons of the same sex in Massachussetts may marry–without quotation amrks. Whatever you or I or anyone else think of “natural essence” is irrelevant–it is what the law thinks that counts.

It is perfectly proper to describe marriage ceremonies *in states where same-sex marriage is not allowed by law* as “weddings” or “marriage” ceremonies–in quotes. Where people are legally married, however, such quotes are inappropriate.

That said, I am sure the Wash Times does not use the quotation marks to scare anyone. For many of us, the phrase “gay marriage” begs the question. I understand that some perceive redefining marriage to include homosexual couples as a civil rights issue. But from others’ perspective, “marriage” is, by natural essence, the joining of two unlike persons — man and woman.

If we are prepared to say that it is ontologically possible for a homosexual couple to be married, then we must be prepared to say that gender doesn’t matter; one or the other gender (take your pick) is not represented in a homosexual union. I, for one, am not prepared to say that.

No one’s making them “work” there.