Marriage and Consent
http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2007/03/consent-and-children.html

Volokh Conspiracy — comments, objections, and replies
http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2007/03/volokh-conspiracy-comments-objections.html

On the nature of marriage (i.e. self-evident):

Future of Marriage
http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2007/03/future-of-marriage.html

Identity Politics, Love Your Label
http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2005/08/identity-politics-love-your-label.html

Seriously though whether we like it or not, many people have views similar to those of DREADNOUGH. Thus the issue is divisive and must be approached carefully.

This appears to be the core of Dreadnought’s argument.

All I’ll say is, that the notions of family are certainly not constant over the world - just compare formal polygamous relationships that can legally exist in the United Arab Emirates with the dominant form of formal non-polygamous relationships (of course people can and do have affairs etc) in Australia. Thus, the assertion that “family” is self-evident is not supported by reality.

The problem with “knowing” what marriage is, is that it precludes any other possibilities, which is, at the least, just silly.

I think we’re done here. I’ve been trying to leave for the last five comments! This has been a fine experience. Thank you to Andrew and congratulations on such relatively (mostly) measured and clever readers.

No, you restrict it through subjective, sub-rational, religious fundamentalist attitudes that you refuse to justify because they are given. You cannot justify your positions, you merely assert them. That a plurality of Australian women and under-50s disagree with your conclusion tells me one very good thing: the kind of emotional, irrational, homophobic politics you advocate is heading for the exit - and about time too.

“Marriages and family are in these self-evident categories. They’re not really like arguments about tax laws or superannuation. although they will often bear down on the same.”

Is this saying that “people” know what “marriage” and “family” are and that people know that “gay marriage” isn’t “marriage”?

Enterprise - OK.
Efficiencies - OK.
Justice - eh?

Justice for who? For conservatives to justly continue their bigotry? The marriage horse has bolted Dreadnaught - no need to muck out the stable.

Using a particular set of criteria, drawn from one modality of knowledge. I also attempt to understand and evaluate, but I don’t restrict the font of knowledge to a limited epistemology.

Do you conduct rigourous experiments before deciding that the sun will come up tomorrow? Does your partner ask you to report the findings, backed up by a review of the literature, before agreeing to go for a picnic?

Marriages and family are in these self-evident categories. They’re not really like arguments about tax laws or superannuation. although they will often bear down on the same.

Andrew, my wider point, cut from the op-ed because of space, was that such a small number of couples form a niche. This isprecisely the kind of space where liberals, even liberals willing to accept the welfare state, recognise that private arrangements are best able to encourage enterprise/efficiencies/justice.