Here’s a shocker for you, right off page A1 of today’s New York Times: After (and, sadly, still preceding) all the fuss and bother and squimishness, it seems some gays and lesbians might choose not get married at all, after all.

In “Gays Respond: ‘I Do,’ ‘I Might’ and ‘I Won’t,’” Pam Belluck writes:

In the aftermath of last week’s court ruling, which could mean that same-sex marriages can take place as early as May, gay couples in Massachusetts and elsewhere are considering whether or not to wed.

The response is hardly monolithic. In interviews with about 20 couples and people who study gay culture, those most interested in marriage had children or pressing concerns about health or mortality.[…]

Of those who rejected marriage, some felt it would be superfluous, and the offer of marriage even a little insulting, considering the length of time they had been together. Others felt that even though their relationships had lasted years, they might not be ready for such a step, or they were soured on the idea by previous, heterosexual marriages.

I can just hear it now: “Damn homos. Give `em what they say they want and they won’t even take it. There’s a larger and more sinister agenda at work here, people! I don’t know what it is, exactly, but I’m sure it has something to do with the Catholic Church, the Boy Scouts, and the Procter & Gamble moon-and-stars thingamajig.” Don’t even start with that, because, well, we know it’s coming anyway.

But why has the Times allocated 1,400 words of prime front-page real estate (yes, I know, including a jump) to informing its readers of the painfully obvious? That gays and lesbians, in the potential face of a sea change in civil law, might ultimately choose to do any number of things in the organization of their private lives, including marry, cohabitate, or remain single for their entire lives.

Sound familiar?

It should. The vast majority of Americans have been making the same choices -- freely -- for centuries.

But when it comes to the gays, this is news. To whom?