Opposite Marriage

I've always thought it impossible to rationally oppose state certification of gay marriages. If two people are determined to pay extra taxes, well why not?

Conservatives are on stronger ground when they make it a question of process rather than outcome. There are good reasons to prefer state certification of gay marriage as the legislated product of a democratic process rather than imposed by judicial fiat (even if I suspect that that is what judges today looking only to law and precedent and ignoring political implication would do).

In a WSJ op-ed Princeton University Law Professor Robert George, takes his stab at arguing against same marriage, and, at first blush, succeeds in not looking the fool:

...
[The state's interest in regulating marriage is] to make it more likely that, wherever possible, children are reared in the context of the bond between the parents whose sexual union gave them life.

If marriage is redefined, its connection to organic bodily union—and thus to procreation—will be undermined. It will increasingly be understood as an emotional union for the sake of adult satisfaction that is served by mutually agreeable sexual play. But there is no reason that primarily emotional unions like friendships should be... legally regulated at all.

The most apparent weaknesses in his argument: We take for granted -- but it might not be the case -- that children are best reared in that context. Also the notion that Government regulation ought be limited to where it has a strong reason is not, unfortunately, shared by all Americans.

And, most fundementally, it would seem an awfully narrow view that limits the social value of opposite marriage to creating a context for rearing children.