She actually makes a decent point. I think, though, that when faced with a difficult situation of the type she describes, the best policy is to experiment with change on a limited scale--which is exactly what we are doing right now. Some areas of the country are clearly not going to adopt same-sex marriage anytime soon; others already have it. This state of affairs is likely to endure for many years, and in the end she's giving a very good reason for why it should be that way.

Also, dwelling on the possible negative social consequences of same-sex marriage is merely stacking the deck. It is altogether possible, as Johnathan Rauch has argued, that same-sex marriage will have positive social consequences, too. Jane Galt's argument amounts to "I don't know about gay marriage, because it might be a bad thing," but by exactly the same reasoning, she ought to consider that it might well be a good thing, too.

I posted a message in reply to Jane that basically points out the fallacy of most of the arguments she made by mentioning that they all come down to "The reformers did this, therefore this happened." while completely ignoring everything else that happened ins society at the time that also would have influence. The defense of marriage argument fails utterly given that most of the amendments not only consist of defining marriage but explicitly denying the other legal avenues for gays to have some of the legal advantages of marriage through other means.

The state has to get out of the marriage business. If people want to pair up let them prepare a binding contract valid in civil court.

Spousal benefits at work (if any) should be up to the employer and not dictated by the state. If companies want to insure your partner, fine. If not, they can save money but risk losing employees.

Parents today, whether married or not, have the same legal obligations to provide for their children. Therefore marriage no longer has a legal effect upon children.

For those insisting on "marriage" go to church. One faith or another will perform a ceremony.

Oh, the howls we'd hear if the state got out of the marriage business. That said, I definitely agree that the state should disentangle itself from this bit of religion. But, I think it would still be valuable for the state to recognize the benefit of the family unit through a set of mutual rights and duties. Just drop all of the superfluous god-stuff. Basically, have the state in the civil-union only business and not the marriage business.

"There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not."
-- C.S. Lewis

Also, dwelling on the possible negative social consequences of same-sex marriage is merely stacking the deck.

What gets me is the strange reasoning that underpins the precautionary principle in this case. Any legit application of the pp ought to have some kind of formal plausibility, which seems to be lacking in this case (disclaimer: link goes to my blog)

Skepticism is tough row to hoe, but it is nonsense to think social progressives will stop once new civil unions are recognized as law. The next progressive step after enaction is expansion, and if you think there won't be protests outside churches that aren't celebrating gay love, you are fooling yourself. What is that saying? The most law the least...?

One of the rules of conservatism is a distrust of innovation and the hapless innovator's unawaredness of the iron law of unintended consequences (Weaver). In that sense, Jane's essay partakes deeply of conservative traits while understating the seeming inablility of innovators (fools, actually)to harness all the King's horses and all the King's men to put back what their stupidities had broken (apologies to Alice). Lawyers, in particular, bear a heavy burden for so-called no fault divorce as well as the devaluation of rape from a capital crime to a wristslap.

Some areas of the country are clearly not going to adopt same-sex marriage anytime soon; others already have it.

Question for you, then, Jason. Do you think that it ought to remain the case that a gay couple wanting to get married would have to actually move to a same-sex-marriage state to have their marriage recognized, not just cross the state line for a ceremony, then return home and seek recognition in a non-SSM state?

By the way...Jane Galt quoting G.K. Chesterton. Be still my beating heart!

Question for you, then, Jason. Do you think that it ought to remain the case that a gay couple wanting to get married would have to actually move to a same-sex-marriage state to have their marriage recognized, not just cross the state line for a ceremony, then return home and seek recognition in a non-SSM state?

Sadly, yes. I personally think it is unjust, and I will continue to advocate same-sex marriage all the same. But I know how the system is set up, and one of its features is that many changes must happen gradually--as a way of preventing costly mistakes. It's something we just have to live with as the lesser of two evils.

I should also add to this that I also endorse the idea of civil unions for all, with "marriage" to be reserved as the domain of individual churches. I've tried again and again to see any injustice to this system, and I cannot. But unless there are any new arguments to be had in this area--on topics we've not covered before--I really don't want to get into the marriage debate all over again.