ping
Gay marriage advocates,though, are no longer calling it "Gay Marriage." They're calling it "Marriage Equality." That reflects their new line, that this is nothing more or less than "Equal Justice Under Law," the excellent principle carved on the lintel of the United States Supreme Court.
(Just like "Global Warming" turned into "Global Climate Change" and then into --- what is it? --- "Global Climate Disruption" or "Extreme Weather Caused by Cow Farts and Exhaling." They get to change and redefine all the terms, and you've got to accept and use their terms or be denied any voice in the discussion.)
The reason they can call this "Marriage Equality" is by simply assuming the key disputed point has already been settled in their favor, which is the definition of marriage.
And their definition of marriage, which they assume we all accept, is, "A loving commitment by two consenting adults, to share their lives together, as long as they both find it personally rewarding." With the codicil: "This deserves to be respected by society and recognized by the State."
This is dubious on the face of it, because members of a "free" society, i.e. all of us, will respect or not respect, as we judge a thing respectable or not. You can't really enforce respect. Only toleration. As MLKing said, "The law can't make you love me, but it can prevent you from lynching me." Right: and that's as far as it goes.
Plus, there is not reason at all to think that all our loves, liaisons, affections, amours, ruttings and romances are any business of the State. These things are what we can justly call "private." Our personal relations --- between two consenting adults, or three or four --- don't need State licensing or supervision.
The exception being: when the relation can bring into being a third person whose rights and dignity are to be protected.
And this child's interests are secured by the state recognizing (not defining, not inventing, not fashioning, but recognizing) the pre-existent institution of marriage, which is the only institution we have which joins a man and a woman, and any offspring which arise from their union.
Other than that --- the procreative factor --- the state has no interest our sex lives. Because without that procreative aspect, two consenting adults can simply manage their own affairs by custom, by culture, and by private contract.
Know what I mean?