On Aug. 4, U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker handed down a decision that ruled California’s Proposition 8 unconstitutional. In effect, the ruling not only allowed gay marriage in California, but used language that would almost certainly be the death-knell for any other laws on any level that restricted which sexes could marry. Although the case is still up for appeal, the decision is already being celebrated by gay marriage activists as a monumental civil rights victory; and it’s already being derided by gay marriage opponents as, well, the beginning of the end of civilization. Both sides think  the other side is ignorant of reality.

What I think is revealing, and what I think is going to make this ruling very controversial for a very long time, is Justice Walker’s actual arguments for his ruling. The decision copied almost word for word from the gay marriage activists’ playbook.

Marriage is considered a fundamental right, and any government’s attempts to regulate it are unconstitutional. This argument makes sense to most gay marriage activists but makes very little sense to most gay marriage opponents. The difference between the two views actually has very little to do with gay marriage at all. It has to do with differing ideas concerning regular, old, dull heterosexual marriage.

Increasingly in our culture, marriage is seen as something of personal convenience. People get married to someone who makes them happy, at least until that person stops making them happy. It’s a public show of affection, and having children is more of an afterthought.

The modern marriage is also far more temporary, with 50 percent of marriages ending in divorce. More often, marriage is seen as “a sort of friendship recognized by the police,” as Robert Louis Stevenson once said. This is the view of marriage that is believed by many gay marriage activists, and if it is true, it is very hard to argue against gay marriage. If marriage is simply a social construct that allows for public displays of affection, laws limiting this construct to a man and a woman are on very shaky ground. If marriage is simply a state construction for giving out certain benefits, then those laws are surely criminal.

However, gay marriage opponents see marriage as an altogether different animal. They see marriage as not something imposed on human nature, but something that arises naturally from the complementary natures of male and female and perfects them. This view of marriage puts permanent commitment and raising a family at the center of the institution. Because this view sees marriage is integrally connected to the nature of male and female, advocates of this view see gay marriage activists as not simply fighting against laws, but fighting against reality itself.

These tremendous differences in what marriage is are what causes the current debate, in which opponents talk past each other and pander to their bases instead of having an actual conversation about the issues. I personally believe that we need to first arrive at a general definition of marriage before we start trying to redefine it.