On Friday, May 22, 2015, the Irish electorate voted “Yes” to legal same-sex marriage by a wide margin. The “Yes” campaign had significant support from politicians of all parties. Their principal message was that a “Yes” victory would have no implications for Irish life and society outside of the homosexual community. The Prime Minister, Mr. Enda Kenny, assured voters that “there is nothing to fear from voting for love and equality,” that the adoption of children in Ireland would in no way be affected, and that religious institutions, including schools, “have the absolute right to continue their teaching of their doctrines, their principles and their beliefs.” (To this he added, somewhat ominously perhaps, “Civil law is a separate matter, and there may be questions asked in any school about the civil law.”)

Mr. Kenny’s Minister of State for Equality, Mr. Aodhán O Ríordáin, echoed these sentiments, albeit by way of a highly imperfect analogy, stating, “we’re not redefining marriage. Marriage isn’t changing. We’re just expanding it. So just as expanding voting rights to women didn’t change voting, extending marriage rights to same-sex couples is not going to change marriage.”

Finally, the former President of Ireland, Mrs. Mary McAleese, assured Irish voters, with considerable verve, that the referendum would affect nothing and no one in Irish society outside of the homosexual population of the country. “This referendum is about them and them alone. The only children affected by this referendum will be Ireland’s gay children.” According to Mrs. McAleese, a “Yes” victory would “end the branding, end the isolation, end the inequality, literally once and for all.”

Now, if the assurances of these politicians are true (which remains to be seen), then the “Yes” victory on Friday is, in fact, no big deal. In the first place, it was largely symbolic, in that most of the rights of marriage were extended to same sex partners under civil partnership legislation that became effective in 2011. Secondly, to the extent that one can judge by the numbers, the reaction of Irish homosexuals to the extension of these rights was rather tepid. The Irish Census reported that in 2011 there were 4,042 cohabiting same-sex couples living in Ireland. Between 2011 and 2014, only 1,695 same-sex couples entered into civil unions under the new legislation (about 42 percent). Moreover, according to the Irish Central Statistics Office, this number has declined from 536 during 2011 to 392 during 2014. These figures suggest that the “Yes” victory will most likely have the practical effect of a couple of thousand same-sex registry office weddings over the next few years. Even double that number would be far from a groundswell in a country of 4.6 million souls.

There is a further reason why the outcome of the referendum probably has not changed much—at least as it affects Irish homosexuals. To understand this, one first must parse a few more facts. Of the 3,221,681 registered Irish voters, 1,201,606 (37 percent) voted “Yes” to same-sex civil marriage; 734,000 (23 percent) voted “No” on the issue; 13,818 (less than 1 percent) of the votes were “spoiled”; and fully 1,272,257 voters (40 percent) did not turn out at all. In other words, 37 percent favored same sex marriage, 23 percent did not, and 40 percent expressed no discernable opinion whatsoever. It is hard to see how such an outcome can be said to “end the branding, end the isolation, end the inequality, literally once and for all.”

The deeper reality is that the “Yes” victory in the Irish referendum changes nothing. O Ríordáin is right when he says that “marriage isn’t changing” because no law, not even one passed by a popular vote, can do that.

In the majority opinion legalizing same-sex marriage in the State of Connecticut, Justice Richard Palmer of the State’s Supreme Court contrasted civil unions and marriage as follows:

Although marriage and civil unions do embody the same legal rights under the law, they are by no means equal. The former is an institution of transcendent historical, cultural and social significance, whereas the latter is not (Kerrigan v. Connecticut Department of Public Health).

Of course, Justice Palmer was entirely correct. Sadly, he failed to consider why marriage is “an institution of transcendent historical, cultural and social significance.” It is because marriage between a man and a woman, even at a natural level, is the sacred medium of the procreation and nurturing of children, the fountain of human life and the foundation of human society. No court, no parliament, no popular vote has the power to bestow the dignity of this kind of marriage upon any other form of union. And, for that matter, neither can any of them wave a magic wand and change anyone’s thinking—rational or irrational—about homosexual unions or homosexual behavior.

At this juncture, probably the most that can be said for the Irish referendum is that, like the Supreme Court of Connecticut, it has exchanged the “second class” institution of civil union for the “second class” institution of same-sex marriage. Indeed, it is fanciful to believe that even the most convinced “Yes” voter can deny the simple biological difference between Jack and Jill and Jack and Joe. When the dust settles, and the impotence of the state to alter objective reality sinks in, it may be that the political masters of the Irish Republic will seek other means of enforcing their “right thinking” among the Irish people. And this will change everything.