At the risk of being labeled a homophobe, I guess I'll foist upon you my opinion regarding "gay marriage."

(I never understood that term, homophobe. I don't drink a lot of milk, but nobody would call me a dairyphobe.)

For the record, let me say that I don't begrudge anyone the right to be gay. I don't think government has any role in what happens in a bedroom between two consenting adults.

And while it certainly isn't my cup of tea, I don't think there should be a law against being gay. Also, I don't think people should suffer discrimination because they're gay.

But this marriage thing is a bit unsettling to me.

First of all, for it to work, we have to redefine the word "marriage."

As it stands now, according to Webster, marriage is "1a: the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband and wife. b: the mutual relation of a husband and wife. c: the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family."

So by definition, "gay marriage" is an oxymoron - a combination of contradictory or incongruous words.

And I guess it's that "c" part of the definition of marriage that concerns me.

Marriage is an institution.

It is the most basic moral institution in our society.

For centuries, marriage has been the vehicle for constructing the most revered and cherished cultural unit - the family.

And I guess I just believe it should stay that way. I mean, I don't think we should redefine the word "marriage" to suit alternate lifestyles.

I truly believe gay marriage has radical and damaging implications for the institutions of marriage and family.

The gay marriage proponents would have us believe that the institution is not as important as two caring, loving people committing themselves one to another for life.

That sounds really warm and fuzzy, but there really is value to the institution.

Consider a case argued by feminist Harvard attorney Martha Minow.

In that case, a lesbian couple mothered a child through artificial insemination. The couple reared the child together but broke up a couple years later. The birth mother cut off her partner from visitation.

That partner sued for visitation rights and Minow, arguing on her behalf, suggested that legal marriage and biological connection were less important to the definition of a family than emotional ties.

The court ruled against Minow.

Stanley Kurtz, a contributing editor for National Review Online, notes the following with regard to this case.

"Wisely, the court ruled against Minow. To have done otherwise would have been a major step toward the elimination of any stable legal or social concept of marriage. Once legal marital status and biological connection can be set aside by a court on grounds of emotional connection, the notion of marriage itself is effectively mooted. At that point, anyone who claims emotional connection can gain court recognition as a de facto parent or marriage partner. Minow was careful to frame her notion of family as 'any group of people' who care for each other. Obviously, under that definition, not only gay marriage, but polygamy and group marriage would gain de facto legal status."

I tend to think we as a culture risk the slippery slope.

If we fundamentally redefine marriage to include "gay marriage" it opens up a Pandora's Box of cultural possibilities.

Gay couples can't have children without adoption or artificial insemination, so we must redefine the cultural institution of "family."

My guess is that it won't be long after gay marriage is legalized before a gay couple hooks up with a birth parent or inseminator to seek legal recognition as a "family."

Kurtz notes that "polyamorists" - people who would like to legally practice group marriage - are already seeking legal recognition for their definition of marriage.

Again, Kurtz: "The difficulty is, group marriages are unstable, and their very existence tends to undermine the social reinforcement currently offered to traditional married couples. Once marriage can mean anything, it will mean nothing."

That last sentence is what concerns me most, and we need to look no further than Scandinavian countries that have had gay marriage for the past decade to see the results.

Since the institution of gay marriage, marriage rates among heterosexuals in those countries have fallen. Couples - even affluent and middle class couples - are having children without getting married.

In fact, the number of children born to couples out of wedlock in Sweden and Norway today exceeds the number of children born to married couples.

So what? Who cares, you say?

Well, unmarried parents are almost twice as likely to split up than married parents, leaving larger numbers of single-parent homes.

That's not a good thing for any culture.

In the United States, my guess is that the numbers of single-parent homes would rise fastest in lower income brackets, creating larger numbers of disadvantaged children.

But having said all that, I still don't think gay people who want to commit to each other should be discriminated against when it comes to the legal status and recognition afforded to married couples.

So why not simply set up a new type of union for gay people. We'll call it garriage. Gay people will get garried. Has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?

They get all the legal benefits and recognition as married couples, but "marriage" remains defined as a union between a man and a woman.

Garriage is defined as a union between two people of the same sex, with all the same trappings as marriage.

Who knows, later on, perhaps the polyamorists can gain recognition. We'll call their unions parriages. They'll get parried.

Sounds crazy, I know. But if that's what it takes for this country to retain the sanctity, definition and institution of marriage, I'm all for it. [[In-content Ad]]