Eve notes that: "[Johnathan] Rauch and others argue that failing to enact same-sex marriage will teach children that cohabitation (by gay couples) is a-okay, and that sex and marriage can rightfully be separated."

I can't believe that this argument is being taken seriously by anyone. (OK, I can, but that is only because finding someone who can think logically is about as rare these days as finding a 2-dollar bill in the street.) Let's try this formulation: "Failing to enact man-sheep marriage will teach children that barnyard sex is a-okay, and that sex and marriage can be rightfully separated."

What's the presumption? People want to do X, and WILL do X, but won't fit into the legal system! They won't be "named" and "recognized" by the law! Not only will this make them less than human, since legal "equality" has come to stand in for spiritual equality (see the women's suffrage debate), the LAW ITSELF will be diminished! It will not, as Elton John has said, "paint with all the colors of the wind."

Ironically the argument rests on the presumption that the law derives its normativity from its ability to accommodate deviation from norms. The more inclusive and "responsive to social change" the law is, the more authoritative it becomes. Any law that does not "name" and "recognize" my "family structure" does not represent me, and therefore is not "democratic" and thus not authoritative. So if I want to play "get married" with some rebellious state employees down at the courthouse, I am ADVANCING the interests of law rather than mocking it.

Of course this is why the authors of the Federalist papers rejected a democracy for a republic. And others reject a republic for other forms of government that more explicitly acknowledge an unchangeable basis in revealed religion.