To clarify, on the matter of how one defines marriage, let’s be clear that I believe that permitting gay marriage is good policy and that the overwhelming majority of opposition to gay marriage is rooted in irrational homophobia. (Personally, I can not understand how anyone can rationally call themselves a “social conservative” while opposing a policy that encourages people to enter into stable relationship and raise children.)

However, I do not believe access to marriage for gays is an equality right equivalent fair practices in pay, employment, housing, etc and opposition to gay marriage is not axiomatically a denial of equal rights.

For example, I have a friend (who jokingly refers to me as a “breeder”) who opposes gay marriage because he feels that it has undermined the historic libertine gay culture. While he, grudgingly, admits that marriage may be acceptable for “breeders” like me, he does not want to see the practice extended. I hardly think you could characterize his opposition to gay marriage as a denial of equal Rights is rooted in irrational homophobia.

A society that puts the infringement of equality rights beyond the reach of majorities should nevertheless significantly be able to define marriage as it sees fit because marriage is not a matter of fundamental equality, but a mechanism that we use to to endow privileges, protections, and status to certain social relationships that we believe enhance the functioning of our society.

For those tempted to bring up the analogy of miscegenation laws, please first reflect on the fact that when we had miscegenation laws we also had race segregated bathrooms; to wit, the adoption of interracial marriage was accompanied with the outlawing of race-segregated bathrooms, while the adoption of gay marriage (where it has occurred) has yet to followed with the outlawing of sex-segregated bathrooms. We recognize the complimentary nature of sex that render comparisons to race, religion, etc inappropriate in certain (very limited) circumstances.

As such, it is a reasonable argument, for example, (though not necessarily one I agree with) that marriage should be denied to gays because it is better that children grow up in families with sex complimentary parents and that we accord greater status to such relationships to promote them (thus why even infertile, etc couples are allowed to marry). In context, that argument doesn’t hold water for me given the prevalence of single parents and divorce, abuse, etc amongst married couples and thus preventing gays from marrying seems it like should be at the bottom of anyone’s list of dealing with social “ills.”

Devoid of context, the argument that marriage should be extended to gays is as equally valid as the argument that we should accept polygamous marriages. However, I favor gay marriage and oppose polygamy yet find no inconsistency in that view because, in context, I know that polygamy is overwhelmingly characterized by abuse and exploitation and thus oppose it and do not feel such opposition violates anyones rights, because marriage is not a “right.” If gay marriage was characterized by abuse and exploitation in the way that polygamy is, I would oppose gay marriage.