With the president and vice-president each announcing their support for expanding the legal definition of marriage to include same-sex relationships, and with Republican candidate Mitt Romney voicing his position over the weekend, we can be certain that this will be one of the central issues of this presidential campaign.
As with any debate about social morality, you can also expect the language used to be caustic, inaccurate, and generally grand adventures in missing the real point. For example, when the state of North Carolina overwhelmingly voted to affirm traditional marriage, headlines reported they banned same-sex marriage.
But as Ryan Anderson pointed out, banning something implies that it once existed. But votes like these — which has happened in 31 states so far — don’t ban anything. They prevent the government from recognizing, and forcing everyone else to recognize, a new, expanded definition of marriage. Those are two very different things. See Anderson’s article at ThePointRadio.org. I’m John Stonestreet.