Reasonable men and women can disagree on whether same-sex unions should be granted legal recognition, or whether such recognition should rise to the level of marriage. The place to work out those disagreements is the democratic arena, not the courtroom.
He claims there are numerous reasons to override the California court's decision but humbly only give us three. When I read the above paragraph I laughed out loud since the California legislature has already sent to the Governor, not once, but twice, a marriage equality bill and the Governor vetoed it deferring to the upcoming Court's decision.
But more offensive is his continuing argument that same sex marriage is a slippery slope (has it happened here in Massachusetts now that same sex couples have been getting married for 4 YEARS? Maybe he's thinking of Utah or Texas which don't have marriage equality).
Society has a vested interest in promoting only traditional marriage.
Men and women are not interchangeable, and same-sex unions - no matter how devoted and enduring - cannot take the place of a married husband and wife. The essential function of marriage is to unite male and female. That is the only kind of union that can produce new life, and therefore the only kind of union in which society
has a survival stake.
Again with the "produce new life" BS. Marriage was about property Jeff, did you forget that, that's why society started it. Jeff, when only fertile, potential child bearing couples, who agree only to marry to have children are allowed to marry, then, I think you'd be able to make this argument. It's discrimination when an opposite sex couple who have just met are able to get married and reap the thousands of special benefits marriages entitles them to and a same sex couple, together for decades, for better or worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, and in most cases in death, get nothing.