WSJ: 'Til the Supreme Court do us part"

They speak; I respond.

To the Editors;

You raise a necessary concern of Federalism over redefining the meaning of marriage through the courts ("'Til the Supreme Court do us part" Thursday, March 27, 2013).

Yet this concern is hardly sufficient to the issue. The more essential question is not, as you indicate, "... that for the Court to transform the definition of marriage for one group fundamentally restructures it for all groups and makes it harder for society through its representatives to rule out anything that adults want to call "marriage.""  Rather, the concern is whether states can create conditions that benefit one group of people and not others. On what state interest should such conditions be allowed?

Perhaps the most prudent act would be for the state to abandon is sanction of 'marriage' and stick to civil unions.  Let churches, temples, mosques and other institutes of spiritual matters conduct marriage. The Fall of the West will not commence.