alanmt

I think that the argument that marriage is the union of husband and wife importantly related to the idea that children need moms and dads is a reasonably arguable one. I disagree with this position, both in its apparent elevation of the sexual identity of the two-parent pair over the value of good parenting, and in its obvious designation of child-bearing to the status of the prime, and only legitimate, raison d'etre of marriage. I would be happy to debate these issues with anyone on the merits.

If one were to win this argument, and convince me, the unspoken conservative question would still remain as to whether, in a nation whose citizens define their relationship to the state through the concepts of liberty and equality, the importance of the potential adverse consequences is such that it is properly the state's role to abdicate its governing principles vis-a-vis its citizens to advance this objective. Is it the government's job to advance social policy at the expense of constitutionally guaranteed equality? With all due respect, this would be a fundamental change in how we govern and how we conceptualize our nation with more palpable long term deleterious consequences to our society than increasing participation in the legal recognition of marriage. Let's give some thought to these consequences.