Jim Manzi:

If subsidiarity is a working compromise designed to accommodate differing moral views, I think that it is a positive good in addressing the second type of objection: that gay marriage will ultimately lead to undesirable social outcomes. I am skeptical that gay marriage is part of a process of social breakdown, but lots of people disagree with me. We have differing theories. I accept that I might be wrong, or at minimum wrong for some times or places. It seems to me that the best way to answer this question is not to yell at each other, or even to see who can write the most elegant and persuasive books, but to let different groups of people voluntarily try different approaches and see what actually happens.Americans have a healthy aversion to telling other people how to live. Only about 30 percent of Americans support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Why don’t we try letting people live how they want to live, and let others try to impose uniform national rules on a heterogeneous population of 300 million people?

Jim, I couldn’t agree more. I have to admit that, until a few years ago, I had never given much (or, probably, any) thought to the issue of same sex marriage/unions/partnerships, call them what you will, but having done so, I just cannot see how the practical objections stand up. As to the moral objections, I have no comment other than to say that I do not share them.