I can certainly think of hypothetical bits of evidence that might make people like me and The Economist's editors re-think support for gay marriage. Ms Gallagher was asked to provide it. But she offers no children suffering because they have two mothers. No higher divorce rates. No other social ills in the states where gays can marry. This is all that one of the country's most prominent opponents of gay marriage has to offer when given a softball question about the harm of gay marriage: no actual harm at all, except to the entry under "marriage" in Maggie Gallagher's personal lexicon. That's a social ill I can live with.
Maggie tells us why she’s worried over same-sex marriage — but not why she abandoned her focus on divorce. She dodges that question. And in fact, her own reasoning suggests divorce is where she ought to direct her activism.
Maggie thinks marriage and children benefit when the "framing ideas" of marriage are also the "governing ideas." Surely one of her framing ideas is that marriage is a life-long commitment. Under current divorce law, though, it’s no longer a governing idea. So if Maggie’s sad and gentle concern is over "the enormous power of governing ideas for a social institution," we still need to learn why she’s focused on same-sex marriage rather than divorce.