Same Sex Marriage Creates Misguided Priorities Among Judges

[From article]
Begin with the steadfast refusal of same-sex marriage advocates even to define what "marriage" is now supposed to mean. As the authors of What Is Marriage? have tirelessly argued, marriage has had a consistent core meaning, essentially the same rationally defensible one, in every human civilization. Those who reject that meaning haven't offered an intellectually coherent new meaning for the word. Is marriage now simply an affective/sentimental/romantic/sexual relationship of two persons who wish to share their lives together? Then what limiting principle demands that it be sexual, and not affective in other non-sexual ways? Or that marriage be exclusive, with a requirement of fidelity to one's spouse? Or that it be permanent-or even that its dissolution be governed by any standards other than the will of the parties? Or that the relation be limited to two persons, or that it rule out the union of close blood-family members? 

Same-sex marriage advocates have offered no serious answers to any of these questions-or, at least, none that do not crumble under the slightest analytical pressure. Rather than say what marriage is-which anyone can see is an absolute prerequisite to saying whether "equality" demands its availability to partners never before thought capable of marrying-these advocates simply shout "marriage equality" ever more loudly, point to an array of "government benefits" linked to marital status, and make their desire for the thing substitute for an argument about what the thing is that they want.

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/10/11030/

Same-Sex Marriage Makes Liberal Judges Irrational
by  Matthew J. Franck
October 15th, 2013