In today's Wall Street Journal
there's an op-ed piece
(requires paid subscription) by Harvard Law professor Mary Ann Glendon in support of the federal marriage amendment. It begins, "President Bush's endorsement of a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage should be welcomed by all Americans who are concerned about equality and preserving democratic decision-making." She argues that same-sex marriage:
- constitutes "a bid for special preferences of the type our society gives to married couples for the very good reason that most of them are raising or have raised children";
- will be enormously expensive (in terms of retirement and health benefits);
- creates "a real problem of distributive justice";
- will impair the rights of children;
- means that "[i]n marriage-preparation and sex-education classes, children will have to be taught about homosexual sex";
- is a threat to religious freedom;
- and contributes to a "flagrant disregard shown by judges and local officials for the rights of citizens to have a say in setting the conditions under which we live, work and raise our children."
These are bare conclusions, and she has her reasons for each one. Her reasoning is worth considering, even if you find it unpersuasive.