Don’t you just love how organizations fall victim to political correctness and other individuals have all the flexibilty of a Kbar knife between the 3rd and 4th vertebrae.

Julian simply brushes aside the idea that marriage might be an institution that exists for a specific purpose that might amount to more than simply a “romantic partnership.” This is why he can make his analogy to segregated public education and still not actually engage Kurtz’s central point: What is marriage for? Once he defines this, he may be able to argue that the gender or number of people involved in relationship is as irrelevant to marriage as the race of children is to education, but until he does so all his argument really amounts to is a curt but meaningless analogy.

Secondly, the reality is that there is already overwhelming evidence that the two-parent, marriage-based family is a child-rearing arrangement that offers concrete benefits other arrangements have not demonstrated. You can argue on libertarian grounds that this does not matter or is not a legitimate concern of public policy, but it is simply dishonest to pretend that these advantages don’t exist.

Reducing the issue to some arbitrary desire to harrass “devilish sodomites” might seem clever, but it does not seriously engage much less refute the arguments for keeping marriage as it is currently defined.