The Supreme Court rulings on marriage have created a lot of food for thought on the future of marriage in the US. They may have given more momentum to the “inevitability” rhetoric, but at the same time they have highlighted many of the key issues in the marriage debate going forward. 

Ryan Anderson has a very insightful piece at RedState on what the three dissenting opinions in the DOMA decision signal for the future of marriage.

And the National Review has an interesting interview with Maggie Gallagher, the co-authour of Debating Same-sex Marriage.

And finally, Cardinal Donald Wuerl, the Catholic archbishop of Washington, published an excellent, sharp article in the Washington Post last week, outlining the case for preserving traditional marriage.

A culture based on the truth of marriage affirms that men and women are equally important, that they have equal dignity but are not the same. The recognition of the difference between a man and a woman is neither discrimination nor bigotry. It is a statement of reality, of fact.

What the court has determined demonstrates the limits of civil legislation. We all recognize that the word “marriage” is being used in many different ways. All that civil government can do is address the legal consequences of any specific union it has chosen to call marriage. While there are many other words to describe other human unions, “marriage,” in its intrinsic meaning and basic integrity, will continue to be understood by most people as the coming together of a man and woman committed to live together with the possibility to generate and raise children.

Far from settling the debate over the meaning of marriage, the Supreme Court decisions have simply reminded all of us that there is a great difference between what a law can decree and what God has created.

Blaise Joseph is a third-year commerce student at the University of New South Wales with a strong interest in social policy. Blaise is originally from Canberra, the centre of politics and the public...