I imagined an advocate for redefining marriage saying something like, “We agree with you that marriage is a unique, important social institution that supports and helps sustain societies. We, too, are concerned about the erosion of marriage through such things as casual sex, cohabitation, no-fault divorce, and adultery. We, too, are dedicated to reaffirming marriage as a social institution that is monogamous, sexually exclusive, and life-long. Please see us same-sex couples as fresh reinforcements to help you in the important work to uphold the institution of marriage.”

But no one ever made that argument to me. In fact, for the past couple of years at those various debates, I began volunteering the above line of reasoning as the one I did not know how to answer, and I would ask if anyone was willing to make it. No one ever did.

The Supreme Court’s decision demonstrated why. The opinion agrees with many supporters of same-sex marriage that their reasoning starts from the foundation of self-autonomy, that the highest goal is for each individual to find satisfaction and fulfillment in matters pertaining to sex, marriage, and family. They do not start from the point that most people in world history have—that marriage is a distinct, important institution that stabilizes and sustains societies, and that personal happiness is only a secondary concern.