The early word on the US Supreme Court taking up the issue of gay “marriage” is that it is “wary” of making a “broad ruling” on the matter. … during the argument, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is considered a swing……

Traditional marriage, at the societal level, produces more children, and it produces higher quality citizens from those children.

I personally am a very traditional type in my personal beliefs, but my political opinions tend to be very libertarian. As such, I think the government should pretty well get its nose out of our business, barring some kind of pretty specific reason.

The issue of children would be sufficient for that, assuming it’s true (I think it is, but that’s not the point).

Otherwise, the government should get out of marriage altogether – generalize the benefits given in marriage, some with any one person, for simplicity and legal standing purposes, but most with whoever you want…. the case for it only involving two people also rests on the traditional view of marriage. As such, any ruling for SSM is also a ruling for plural marriage (and will become so in fairly short order).

Bestiality is something different altogether, so I won’t go that far as some have (which is very unhelpful, really), but the logical consequence of the arguments for SSM work exactly as well for plural marriage. Let’s not pretend otherwise.

Oddly, he compared intact families with straight parents, to broken homes with a potential mixed-orientation relationship where one or both parents had an affair, and then proceeded to blame poor outcomes for the children involved on sexuality. Either Mr. Regnerus, a tenured professor at the University of Texas, hasn’t a clue how to analyze data, or he had an agenda (his own or his sponsor’s).