In the press coverage of Wednesday’s fateful decision in Washington State, nearly all media outlets featured similar headlines: “COURT UPHOLDS GAY MARRIAGE BAN,” or “NO RELIEF FROM GAY MARRIAGE BAN” or “COURT WON’T OVERTURN GAY MARRIAGE BAN.”

References to “gay marriage bans” have become so ubiquitous across the country, in fact, that no one bothers to note that there is no such thing. A definition of marriage in terms of the natural family, or even a “Defense of Marriage Act” is in no sense a “gay marriage ban.”

Consider the State of Washington, for instance. The Defense of Marriage Act just upheld by the state Supreme Court doesn’t even mention gay marriage. How can a law be described as “banning” an institution it doesn’t even mention? As in most other states, our legislature merely re-emphasized the traditional definition of marriage as an institution limited to one man and one woman. Is this a “polygamy ban”? Obviously, plural marriage is ruled out with equal force to any exclusion of same sex unions.

Since state laws limit voting rights to those who are age 18 or above, do these regulations amount to “youth voting bans?” Does the requirement to get a license before you’re allowed to drive amount to an “unlicensed drivers ban”?

By calling any attempt to re-enforce traditional definitions of marriage as a ban on something, the media make such attempts look oppressive and nasty. The term “gay marriage ban” naturally produces groans in much of the populace who may shrug and say, “Why not leave the gays alone! Why do you have to ‘ban’ anything?”

Of course, such sentiments utterly misstate the nature of the argument: it’s actually gay radicals who won’t leave the institution of marriage alone, and agitate ceaselessly for its alteration. In this context they make progress when they characterize any resistance to their campaign of redefinition as a “ban.” Actually, preserving natural marriage as it’s always been defined isn’t a ban, and interferes with no one’s privacy, as marriage by its very nature is a public institution that validates intimate relationships.

Sodomy laws once attempted to interfere with such intimate connections, but the Supreme Court voided those regulations a few years ago as violating the “right to privacy” invented in 1965. Not even the most radical justice, however, could contend that a contractual relationship requiring a government license, witnesses, and public adjustments in legal status should exist in some secret zone beyond the control of the very government called upon to support and enforce it.

Clear thinking on the marriage issue requires clear talking and clear writing about the true nature of the ongoing disputes. The term “gay marriage ban” only adds confusion, and supports the ongoing (and embarrassing) attempt to portray all homosexuals as unfortunate, horribly oppressed victims. By upholding the long-standing definition of marriage (with all its limitations for multiple and same-sex partners) the Washington Supreme Court did nothing to interfere with the homosexual love that, we’re endlessly told, is already so beautiful, noble, enriching, joyous and pure. A committed gay couple is no less committed because the judges refused to overturn the status quo.

In the long-run, it’s far healthier for the gay community to trumpet proudly the achievements of its long-term, successful relationships (when they exist) rather than to claim that limiting the governmental definition of marriage to one man and one woman somehow makes those cherished homosexual connections less durable and less valuable. In this ironic sense, opponents of same sex marriage actually show more respect for gay relationships (as they function today) than do the advocates of matrimonial redefinition who claim those couplings lack something significant as long as they fail to win governmental endorsement.

Anyone who requires governmental approval for a sense of wholeness or personal pride clearly suffers from much deeper problems than a lack of automatic survivor benefits, or pre-assigned visiting rights at the hospital. If anything should be banned, it should be claims on competitive victimhood and misleading press slogans– which dishonor the gay community, as well as the rest of America.