The trouble is, there is no answer that doesn't ultimately lead back to the idea that marriage is somehow a special provenance reserved for heterosexual couples, which of course brings us to the ruling and its discussion about how separate is almost invariably not equal. The 'rose by any other name' argument truly does miss the point.
Romney's big push for the Constitutional Ammendment rests on the idea that marriage is for the purpose of having children... I'm assuming that if that gem gets rammed down our throats, it will mean that heterosexual couples either unable or unwilling push out babies will similarly be prohibited from marrying?
And you thought that we weren't viewed as cattle.
