[BikerNYC]

Equal protection under the law.

Indeed.

Marriage is also supposed to be "till death do we part," but I don't see all us straight people calling for the end of divorce. Indeed, the Catholic Church does not recognize civil divorce and prohibits those who are divorced from marrying in their churches. Why shouldn't we adopt that position?

I find it incredibly hypocritical to focus on the FMA, when marriage is crumbling (if, in fact, it is) not because of gay marriages, but because of divorce and people like Britney Spears walking down the isle at the drop of a pin. She single-handedly did more damage to the institution of marriage then all of the gay people who have been married to date.

Marriage is an institution that is entered into and existed from at will. To claim that such an institution needs federal protection is preposterous, since the requirements to enter into it are just about nil.

The author of DOMA, Mr. Barr, has been married three times. The President who signed DOMA into law...well...we all know what kind of poster boy for the sanctity of marriage he is. The moral of this story is...

Those who live in glass houses whould not throw stones.

[jwalsh07]

I don't find your argument a persuasive one. The same folks who opposed liberalization of divorce law also oppose homosexual marriage. We are consistent.

We now know that no fault was bad public policy resulting in more government to substitute for one of the parents. Redefining marriage is again bad public policy and the evidence in Scandanavia suggests rather strongly a further erosion of the institution of marriage and rising levels of out of wedlock births resulting in even more government.

So justifying more bad public policy based on bad public policy is not a persuasive argument nor does it say anything about the institution of marriage. It says much about bad public policy.