A reader makes the following point:
I am gay and conservative. I am disinterested in the gay marriage cause, both in the sense of bored and distanced. I am not opposed but I agree with my Senator, the earnest Santorum, marriage is for the protection of children.
In fact, consistent with his and Dr. Dobson’s position, I would wish to see its state mandated protections denied to all childless couples and reserved only for those who do breed or rear whether they are heterosexual or gay. I understand the desirability of queer ratification and I think state recognized contracts which enumerate a couple’s privileges and benefits could be the acceptable alternative for same sex pairings. However I do not think that the state should be obliged to afford life sustaining support benefits to such childless couples as are automatically granted to married couples (health insurance and social security for example) in the interest of preserving the viability of surviving family if the breadwinner dies.
That strikes me as a coherent position. If you believe, as Stanley Kurtz does, that it is critical to maintain the cultural link between marriage and parenting, we do have an obvious option: give all couples civil unions and let them be converted to marriage licenses if and when the couple has or adopts children. That would honor both the marriage-parenting link, and remove the indefensible heterosexual privilege that the law now upholds. But it won’t happen – because straight couples without children would be appalled at how it denigrates their relationships and makes them second-class citizens. Well, at least they would then know how it feels like to be gay.
The Dish 