This was not exactly what I would call a successful venture: Gallagher meandered a lot, made some rather disjointed arguments and scattered points, and never really coherently explained her view that allowing same-sex marriage would undermine the traditional heterosexual kind....
As for Gallagher's argument, which some of the commenters managed to summarize better than she did....
One more point to ponder: if the primary purpose of marriage is the romantic happiness and satisfaction of adults, then staying together for the sake of the children even if romantic passion and intimacy have one out of the marriage -- an ideal many people who are neither reactionary nor bigoted would like to reclaim -- becomes a far less tenable proposition.
18: Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him."
19: So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.
20: The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper fit for him.
21: So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh;
22: and the rib which the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.
23: Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."
24: Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.
25: And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed.
26: Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth."
27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
28: And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth."
29: And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food.
I think that we need an honest discussion of these possible outcomes, and of how we as a society can manage the recognition of same-sex unions (which I think is a matter of basic justice and dignity) in such a way as to minimize potential negative repercussions.
Do you think Young's analysis is sufficient for DOMAs to survive a Romer-style animus challenge?
It is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than that so it was laid down in the time of Henry IV. It is still more revolting if the grounds upon which it was laid down have vanished long since, and the rule simply persists from blind imitation of the past.
Why did you find Lawrence unsatisfying? Why isn't that a problem in New Jersey?
Just a friendly piece of advice.
NO such exemption or permission is given, ANYWHERE, in the Bible for homosexuality or homosexual marriage; in fact, quite the opposite.
This was not exactly what I would call a successful venture: Gallagher meandered a lot, made some rather disjointed arguments and scattered points, and never really coherently explained her view that allowing same-sex marriage would undermine the traditional heterosexual kind.
...Ms. Gallagher offered a position against gay marriage, but that her arguments were so woefully underpowered, but culturally salient to those already inclined against gay marriage, that they provided a lot of heat without light.
Your 'suspicion' is a case of begging the question or attempting to do what it was that you suggest I might be implying;
They have warned that were it to be placed in their laps, that SCOTUS is an inadequate venue to deal with these broader issues and in being forced to rule, may be compelled to formulate a decision which conflicts with non-legal beliefs held by both sides of the argument.
My invitation to dissect the text further was, however, genuine. I don't mind debating a/the bible's contents because I'm not terribly concerned with whose interpretation is "right" (and rather doubt the existence of a "right" answer in many of the details). To me, it is a genuinely academic exercise.
It is nice to know that there are some 'hidden' out there.
As far as Appellate's over- and underinclusive argument (used in Romer), that would depend on what's considered "gross".