This week’s Supreme Court decisions regarding gay marriages and equality concerned me, but they did not surprise me.

I haven’t read the full decisions as yet, but from the commentaries I have read and watched — both liberal and conservative — our courts are now reflecting cultural changes at the expense of foundation and tradition.

I wasn’t appalled on moral grounds, although my moral code simply cannot fathom a gay lifestyle. We know homosexuality has been around since … well, almost the beginning of recorded history. It’s nothing new, only more out in the open thanks mainly to the entertainment industry and politically correct liberals.

It is estimated there are about 9,000,000 gay/lesbians in the country. That sounds like a lot, but it represents less than 3% of the nation. Listening to media reports, you would think the number is much higher.

I realize the days of Ozzie and Harriet and the Cleavers are long gone, but while their moral compass and values may be “outdated”, but I’m just not sure The New Normal or Glee are the norm. In just the last 20 years, there have been close to 100 sitcoms and 200 TV dramas which include central LGBT characters. These include popular shows like Nashville, Scandal and Revenge.

But, more than the cultural issue, I bemoan the fact the justices have redefined the dictionary. That’s an evolution as well. Look at the word “gay” as an example changing from happy go lucky to an often pejorative depiction of a lifestyle. These latest decisions will add words like “marriage”, “father,” “mother,” “spouse,” “husband” and “wife” to that evolution. I’m not saying that’s wrong, but wordsmiths tend to like to know the definition of words they use.

I am all for equality. But I think the net result could be achieved without changing the meaning of words. Certainly, especially as the numbers started creeping up to the current 9,000,000, there were instances where gay couples were denied benefits and even access to each other, especially in the event of sickness. Our legal system, I think, has given us avenues to remedy these inequities (like power of attorney, advance directives, benefit assignment, HIPPA notification, etc.), so I cringe when I think definitions have to change.

Whatever lifestyle a person chooses, I say, okay. That’s your decision, not mine. Mazel tov. Live long and prosper. Rock on.

This week reminded me of a conversation I had while editor of the Catholic Standard in Washington, DC. The cardinal had just written a column against the homosexual lifestyle, and a reader — a guy we’ll call Bob — wrote a rebuttal letter I ran {much to the chagrin of the cardinal}. I also called Bob and had what I thought was a good conversation. He made a number of valid points.

As I told him, I want to understand the same-sex attraction. I just can’t wrap my head around the concept {that offer remains}. He said it was about companionship and asked me, when I get home at night, do I kiss my wife and relax and unwind with her. Of course, I told him yes. “That’s all I want except my partner happens to be another man.”

I can understand that … and I told him so. “But,” I added, “Marriage isn’t just about companionship …” He interrupted me and said, “No, it includes sex, too.”

“Exactly,” I said. “You proudly say you are a homosexual, not a homocompanion, not a homoroommate. And it’s the sex I don’t understand. I’m not saying it is right, wrong or indifferent. I am saying it is not natural.”

We talked for about an hour. In the end, he didn’t sway me, nor I him. I ended the conversation by telling him I felt he wanted it all. “You can’t call a zebra a striped horse,” I said. He said a zebra was a kind of horse. “Wrong,” I said. “It’s in the horse family, but it is not a horse any more than an ass is. You may want to call it a striped horse, but it is a zebra.”

Unless the Supreme Court tinkers with that definition, too.

THOUGHT TO REMEMBER: Those with money and those who are rich are not necessarily the same people.