That flushing sound you hear...

...is the institution of marriage circling the drain on its way down the toilet.

The U.S. Supreme Court today just struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, and Proposition 8 in California. With this decision now in the books as case law from the highest court the land, it will be used to strike down laws by other states that prohibit gay marriage and seek to define marriage as the union between a man and a woman.

While I understand and appreciate the issues of discrimination and equal protection under the law faced before the court, I fail to see how the freedom to marry falls into the category of equal protection.

The "gay rights" community insists marriage to be a civil right. I contend that it is not a right, but rather a liberty and a privilege. It is a religious liberty for faith groups to exercise and practice under much higher laws than civil laws of men. Marriage is about the freedom to exercise one's religion.

The USSC's decision today ensures that neither the federal government nor the states may prevent the gay movement from re-defining marriage; but the decision will open the flood gates for gay activists to prevent religious groups from protecting their definition of legal marriage. As such, there is not only a double standard that already exists, but I foresee that "equal protection under the law" will soon not apply to religious groups or individuals who want to preserve their definition of marriage.

Another can of worms that could be opened by this decision is the notion that a minister who refuses to marry a gay couple may be sued for discrimination; thereby infringing upon the cleric's constitutional right to freely exercise religion.

The question will be which constitutional right comes first: The "right" to marry or the right to practice one's faith? In my view, the issue of marriage is a moral and Biblical one. For other faith groups, it is clearly a religious rite and issue. As a Christian, I married for two reasons: (1) Because I wanted to raise a family with the woman I loved; and (2) so that my sexual expression may be pure and righteous.

If the primary purpose of marriage is to establish our love and commitment to someone, then should I marry my mother, siblings and children to establish my love and commitment to them? Absurd as this sounds, that is the logical conclusion one reaches when listening to the gay rights lobby express why its members want to marry.

From a secular position, the pragmatic point of marriage is to create an institution that is stable for the procreation of humankind, and for the raising of next generations of such beings. It does not take a rocket scientist to see that the dynamic of a mother (female) figure and a father (male) figure in a family unit has proven effective for generations, centuries and millennia. There is something specific I cannot quite put my finger on that a woman (wife, mother) brings to the marriage and something specific that the man (husband, father) brings to the marriage. Whatever it is, it works. God has known it since before the beginning of time. That's why He established it when creating man and woman.

The USSC's ruling will not only permit homosexuals to marry across the country, but to adopt children, and perhaps even "procreate" through surrogacy and through artificial means. I do not see how this will be effective and productive for society.

How will the proven dynamic of a mother and a father figure be introduced in a "family" of two mothers or two fathers? How will young females benefit from two mommies if they do not have a solid male role model to develop an intimate relationship with, and learn how to have appropriate and healthy relationships with members of the opposite gender? Or, how will they learn to be healthy women if they do not have a solid female role model in their lives?

Same for young males. If they do not have the nurturing of a mother figure, how can they learn to interact appropriately with members of the opposite sex and develop healthy intimate relationships with them? Or if raised without a father figure, how can they be expected to grow up to be healthy men if they do not have a solid male role model from which to learn?

I feel that the dynamics of gay couples will confuse children as they grow into young adulthood.

Environment plays a significant role in the lives of children, and has a substantial impact on them and the choices and decisions they make. They learn from observation. To be a man is different from being a woman. The genders are very distinct in their behaviors, in the way they process information, and in their intrinsic skill sets. They play off and benefit each other in special ways.

How will a boy learn what it means to be a man in society if raised by two mommies, or two daddies and no mother figure? How will a girl learn what it means to be a woman in society if raised by two daddies, or two mommies and no father figure? The gay community hasn't answered these questions. It hasn't addressed these very important issues and what they mean to be a family unit protected within the bonds of marriage.

I feel that gay activists just want to keep pushing their way into areas of society that their religious opponents value. It is about getting in peoples' faces. It is about pushing and pressing boundaries of others; dissrespecting their spaces. It is about advancing an agenda.

Twenty-five to thirty years ago, the gay movement said it just wanted to be recognized as legitimate people and not in-human freaks. Fifteen to twenty years ago, gays just wanted minority status so they could be protected in their jobs, their schooling, and their ability to purchase property. And in the past decade or so, the ante has been upped to seek marriage. The envelope and the boundaries are continually being pushed.

What is next? A couple decades ago, to be gay was to have a sexual preference. The activist movement then attempted to legitimize its lifestyle by insisting this "preference" was really a biological orientation. It was genetic and couldn't be helped, fixed or reversed. This helped them to gain minority status.

What I don't get is how gays can defend their insistence that their lifestyle is a biological orientation when the same people said being gay was a preference just a few years before. Either it is, or it isn't a choice or preference.

If homosexuality was truly biological, then why isn't the animal kingdom as much homosexual as heterosexual? Why do animals continue to be exclusively heterosexual? Dogs perform what appear to be homosexual acts as a way to communicate dominance over another dog; but not as sexual preference. Many other species do the same.

I do not see conclusive proof that there is a homosexual gene, and that it is a biological orientation rather than an environmental influence.

I'm just concerned about what is next. Will the homosexual community insist that a gay-friendly version of the Bible be published to counter the "conventional" version? Will they insist upon equal time on TV, radio and in print? Can a doctor be sued if s/he refuses to artificially inseminate a lesbian couple? Or if a surrogate mother refuses to carry the child of a gay couple? Where will the boundary pushing stop...or will it?