Why not ask Canadians what happens after same-sex marriage is legalized?
First, human rights (including impacts on freedom of speech, parental rights in public education, and the autonomy of religious institutions);Second, further developments in what sorts of relationships political society will be willing to recognize as a marriage (e.g., polygamy);And third, the social practice of marriage.
What transpired was the adoption of a new orthodoxy: that same-sex relationships are, in every way, the equivalent of traditional marriage, and that same-sex marriage must therefore be treated identically to traditional marriage in law and public life.
Much speech that was permitted before same-sex marriage now carries risks. Many of those who have persisted in voicing their dissent have been subjected to investigations by human rights commissions and (in some cases) proceedings before human rights tribunals.
As long as these tools remain at the disposal of the commissions ~ for whom the new orthodoxy gives no theoretical basis to tolerate dissent ~ to engage in public discussion about same-sex marriage is to court ruin.
Institutionalizing same-sex marriage has subtly but pervasively changed parental rights in public education.
Courts have been unsympathetic to parental objections: if parents are clinging to outdated bigotries, then children must bear the burden of “cognitive dissonance” ~ they must absorb conflicting things from home and school while school tries to win out.
Instead, the stated rationale was to prevent bullying; that is, to promote the acceptance of gay and lesbian youth and the children of same-sex households.
RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS’ RIGHT TO AUTONOMY
First, marriage is in decline in Canada, as it is in much of the West;Second, same-sex marriage is a statistically minor phenomenon; andThird, there are very few same-sex couples (married or not) with children in the home.