I'll confess I haven't been following this all that closely. Although I have specific moral ideas about marriage and the like, I don't think most of it belongs in the legal arena.

I had forgotten about the Defense of Marriage Act. Yech. Not a Federal issue, IMO. But then, I could fill 40 pages with issues that should never have been Federal issues but are. I can remember when "let's not make a Federal case out of it" actually meant something.

On the same grounds, I oppose any Constitutional amendments dealing with this. It's not what the Constitution is for.

My comment on dismantling moral structures was apart from any legal issues. Many people want to place their actions beyond any form of judgment, even people saying "you are doing something wrong." Having the actions be legal or illegal is irrelevant in this context. And I believe at least some of the activists pushing this issue have that as a goal, trying to devalue the idea of marriage until, like many other things, it's "whatever I say it is."

I also pointed out that once one accepts this view, there is no longer any foundation for claiming any other "form" of marriage is wrong, never mind illegal. Where do you draw the line? And how?

I have been conflicted on this. It is obvious that if gay men had had a culture of monogamy and commitment, instead of what "gay culture" was in the early 80's ("if it moves, screw it"), there would have been no AIDS epidemic.* Will making marriage legal change how gay men behave? I have no answer to that question.

*The behavior of gay men and lesbians reveals more about how men and women are inherently different about commitment and sexual attitudes than just about anything else. Joke a lesbian told: "What does a lesbian bring along on a second date? A U-Haul."