Over the last few weeks a number of readers have suggested that maybe the answer isn’t to “open up” marriage to same-sex couples, but to close it off to a larger number of heterosexuals. The argument takes many forms and I haven’t pondered it enough myself, but the basic idea is that if we make the standards for marriage much stricter — particularly restricting it to couples with children — we not only preserve the special status of marriage we take away many of the arguments for same sex marriage. In a sense this is what various Churches and synagogues do when they require extensive counseling before marriage. By increasing the costs of marriage thet increase the value of it. I’m not sure I agree entirely, but it’s interesting. This reader responding to Charles Murray’s post gives a good sense of the idea:

Jonah,
I agree with Michael Kinsley changing the legal institution of marriage, but would take it one step further to address some of the moral issues. Since one of the main concerns of pro-marriage folks is the effect on children, (and justifiably so), I propose that the legal, state recognized definition of marriage be restricted to couples that have children. Furthermore, to address the illegitimacy issue, that once a couple gives birth to a child, they are automatically legally married, with all of the attendant responsibilties, whether they like it or not.
This would also help address the concerns about monogamy voiced by folks like Stanley Kurtz, because by definition, if you fathered children by more than one woman (without first obtaining a divorce), you would be legally married to both, and therefore a bigamist, and could be punished under the law.
Lots of wrinkles to be ironed out, I know, but it seems to me like a solution that increases individual resposibility, doesn’t discriminate, promotes accepted morality, and protects children more than the current system. I’d be interested in hearing what you guys think.
-Doug Lach