JOHN LEO'S BLOG

Traditional conceptions of marriage and the "privileging" of marriage drop out of the debate once courts, such as Massachusetts's highest court, define marriage in terms of feeling and choice. Columnist Katherine Kersten writes in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune: "Today gay marriage supporters' mantra is, 'How does my same-sex marriage harm your marriage?' Down the road it may be, 'How does my marriage of two men and a woman harm your marriage?' " (Answer: by deconstructing marriage out of existence and placing all consensual relationships on the same footing.)

Then there is the possibly disastrous effect of the Supreme Court's gassy "mystery passage" in the Casey abortion decision: "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."

This was very likely the goofiest line ever emitted by the Rehnquist court. The majority here wasn't talking about private beliefs but about actions. In effect, the line seems to mean that I cannot define my own concept of anything important if the state is imposing definitions blocking my own, so all government decisions that affect my deep personal feelings on my concept of existence and the meaning of the universe are illegitimate.

Let's hope the new Supreme Court justices help patch this crude, anything-goes doctrine. In the meantime, the courts have surely set the stage for a possible decision approving polygamy.