Actually he’s wrong: it’s a step along the road to absolute tyranny. “Gay marriage” represents the state arrogating to itself the right to redefine natural non-state institutions, which have existed in the culture from time-out-of-mind.
It is a deeper analog of the statist corruption of the Commerce Clause. The plea being that the state having an interest in registering marriages (which have never been entirely a religious institution as is attested by the Common Law notion that a long enough cohabitation constitutes a marriage; the fact that for about eight centuries, Christian marriage was a Roman civil marriage taking place with the blessing of the local bishop; and the accounts of marriages by the patriarchs in the Scriptures prove) and in supporting the socially-beneficial natural institution of marriage by favorable tax treatment, that the state can therefore completely regulate marriage to the point of having the power to redefine it. (I trust you see the analogy with Congress having the right to regulate commerce among the several states purportedly giving Congress the right to regulate activity entirely within a state, like private gardening, on the plea that it “affects interstate commerce”.)
I’ve always thought that “arrogating” was THE perfect word to describe leftist governing philosophy.
arrogate: to claim or appropriate for oneself presumptuously or without justification