In yet another attempt to excuse bypassing the democratic process, California Chief Justice Ronald George recently asserted that a 1948 court decision legalizing interracial marriage in California is analogous to the May 15 ruling granting same-sex couples the “right” to marry. He went on to predict, in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, that same-sex “marriage” will be more quickly accepted by the public than racial equality.

Putting aside for the moment that it’s quite presumptuous to say that Californians consider same-sex “marriage” a more important thing to act quickly upon than racism, Chief Justice George’s take on the California fiasco proves once again that judges make poor prophets, as his prediction and comparison fall miserably short on several grounds.

First of all, the court’s role in society is not to make laws, but to interpret and apply them; lawmaking is reserved for the legislature.

But secondly, what about similarities between the California Supreme Court decision legalizing interracial marriage 60 years ago (Perez v. Sparks) and the recent ruling legalizing same-sex “marriage” (In re: Marriage Cases)? The chief justice of the highest court in California apparently fails to see the obvious differences.

It’s an undeniable fact that interracial marriage laws in 1948 were a departure from historical marriage, as prohibitions of interracial marriage had nothing to do with the institution of marriage and everything to do with societal prejudice. It was also quite clear that a key issue in Perez had to do with lawmakers not wanting the mixing of races to produce interracial children.

The court’s ruling to legalize same-sex “marriage” fails to compare with the Perez decision in that redefining “marriage” changed the institution itself, whereas marriage both before and after 1948 remained one man and one woman. Only after May 15, 2008, has the time-honored institution of marriage been adulterated to give virtually any two friends the right to have their friendship licensed as a “marriage.”

Regardless of the unsubstantiated arguments used to create same-sex “marriages,” none of them even come close to justifying the potential and proven consequences children face when raised in a home without both a mother and a father. The government should never set policy and courts should never impose a system that knowingly deprives a child of a mom or a dad.

The key failure on the part of same-sex “marriage” advocates is that they say it’s about love and equality, or they ask, “How does this hurt you?” But they misunderstand that those defending marriage as the union of one man and one woman are not just concerned with themselves. They are concerned with the long-term benefit for children, families, and communities. The issue is bigger than a “personal relationship.” Same-sex “marriage” simply doesn’t make sense to those who have children’s best interest at heart.

Yes, there are great single parents. But there’s a difference between coping well with unfortunate circumstances in the life of a child and enacting public policy that deliberately deprives children of a mom and a dad.

The non-partisan social science research tells us that children raised in a home without both a mom and a dad are twice as likely to use drugs, 54 percent more likely to use alcohol, 62 percent more likely to engage in premature sexual activity, twice as likely to commit crimes, have 50 percent higher depression and suicide rates, and have higher school drop-out rates.

Tragic. But can’t the cohabitation of any two adults in a home make it a healthy home? No. Whether we’re talking about a single parent or one biological parent and an unrelated parent, all non-partisan research and common sense tell us that children suffer much greater risks when their own mother and father are not present in the home. Despite the claims of same-sex couples that two parents of the same sex can do just as well, there simply is no research on children raised by two same-sex parents from birth.

Television viewers have been and will be bombarded with a tidal wave of same-sex ”marriage” images, but we must remember that these ads and media stories are being used to target emotions—not sense, responsibility, or the well-being of future generations. The groups that have designed these messages have not hidden their desire to normalize homosexual behavior. As just one recent example, a joint statement issued by several of the largest national organizations fighting legal battles for same-sex couples stated the following:

Couples who want to should get married, call themselves married, and ask (sometimes demand) that family, friends, neighbors, businesses, employers and the community treat their marriages with respect. Making the marriages of same-sex couples a conspicuous part of American society will help us get something we’ll need to win ultimately: public acceptance of equal treatment for lesbian and gay families.[1]

Strange coming from the same people who accuse their opponents of trying to force their morality on people. Contrary to popular belief, this is not a “live and let live” crowd. This is a “live the way we want you to live, or we’ll use the force of law” crowd. Religious liberty, despite its unquestionable foundation in American history, must take a back seat to sexual desires. Georgetown University law professor Chai Feldblum, a champion of special rights for those involved in homosexual behavior, puts it bluntly:

There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that’s the only way the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner.[2]

So, would Feldblum object to amending the U.S. Constitution to say that “sexual liberty” is superior to religious liberty? Was mention of sexual preference left out of the First Amendment because the Founders were just ignorant of its greater importance than religious liberty? No, they believed that religious liberty was our most important right.

Indeed, the U.S. government recognizes—but does not create—fundamental rights. Fundamental rights transcend the government and cannot be invented simply because some people desire to use the big stick of the government to force everyone else to affirm their behavior.

Marriage, for example, is not a device for affirming any individual’s dignity. Because the government’s interest in marriage is primarily to encourage environments that do not deliberately deny children the benefit of a mother or father, here’s the question all of us should be asking: “Which parent doesn’t matter—mom or dad?”

One hopes Justice George will consider that question, too.