Quote:
|
We have already gone too far, in both law and culture, in weakening the link between marriage and procreation. To break it altogether would make the institution of marriage unintelligible. What possible governmental interest is there in encouraging long-term commitments with a sexual element, just as such?
|
So what should be rolled back?
Marriage is failing as an institution, esp. among the poor, long before gay marriage came on the scene.
This might be called "the nail in the coffin" argument. Maybe they ought to marshal their resources towards saving marriage, and not just fighting gay marriage and civil unions.
I am no huge backer of gay marriage. But I'm still waiting for more convincing arguments against it.
I like to say things like "Not only do I favor marriage for gays, I intend to make it compulsory." It gets a nice reaction (for my level of comedy, a chuckle is fabulous success).