Glenn Reynolds says he doesn’t think there’s a good argument to be made that gay marriage could undermine marriage. Fine. Let’s put the point differently. Reynolds admits in this post that there are at least some folks on the left who actually agree with conservatives that gay marriage will undermine marriage in general. Then he says, “I rather suspect it will have the opposite effect.” My point is that the tone of Reynolds’ post is one of conceding at least some legitimate evidence to the other side, and then saying on a judgement call that he thinks the effects of gay marriage will go a different way. Reynolds doesn’t make it an issue of prejudice, but a question of judgement about a social effect. He may think the argument of conservatives is weak, but he grants it at least some basis, even if he thinks it is ultimately unpersuasive. I’m not trying to recruit Reynolds as a supporter of anti-gay marriage arguments. I’m only trying to show that his way of framing the debate is fair.

On substance, however, Reynolds is wrong. As I’ll show after Massachusetts, those radical gays who believe and hope that gay marriage will undermine marriage are absolutely right, and well placed to bring their goals about. Stay tuned.